You have news tips, feel free to contact us via email


One of the Fishrot accused Tamson Hatuikulipi says that Johannes Stefansson’s evidence should be struck off because there is no proof that he will come to Namibia to testify.

Tamson is currently in prison together with his father-in-law Bernard Esau, his cousin James Hatuikulipi, former justice minister Sacky Shanghala, Ricardo Gustavo and Pius Mwatelulo.

They are the main suspects in the Fishrot scandal.

In his answering affidavit where he is fighting to stop the court from granting the prosecutor-general the final restraint order over their assets, Tamson says it is an unrealistic assumption that Stefansson will come.

He states: “During the bail application of fifth defendant (Esau) and I, that was held in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court during July 2020, Mr Olivier of the Anti-Corruption Commission testified during cross-examination that Mr Stefansson is the main witness in the criminal matter and that no indemnity has been given to Mr Stefansson.”

Tamson also said that the Anti-Corruption Commission chief investigator Andreas Kanyangela has also said in court that the prosecution must still decide whether Mr Stefansson is to be considered a whistleblower or a co-accused.

In addition, Tamson says the prosecutor-general does not state in her founding affidavit whether she offered Stefansson any indemnification against being arrested and prosecuted when he comes to Namibia nor does Stefansson say so.

“Mr Stefansson is a self-confessed criminal and is considered as such by the prosecution and the Anti-Corruption Commission and without any indemnification will be arrested when he comes to Namibia,” Tamson says.

He adds that if Stefansson should be arrested and charged, he will be convicted on his own version and that he will be imprisoned for a lengthy period.

Stefansson, however, told Eagle FM in an interview sometime this year that he was coming to Namibia to testify against the Fishrot accused.


Tamson’s father-in-law Esau is also fighting to keep the prosecutor-general’s fingers away from his pension.

In his own affidavit dated 31 August 2021, Esau says he was advised that in terms of section 37(A)(1) of the Pension Funds Act, 24 of 1958 (as amended) pension money cannot be subjected to the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) restraint order as such funds cannot be confiscated as envisaged by section 24 read with section 32 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 29 of 2004 as amended.

Esau says that as a pensioner, he receives N$102 869.23 before deductions from parliament.

He also says on or before 14 August 2020, his Standard Bank account was credited with N$1 937 979.87 as a third allowance of his pension payout.

Furthermore, Esau says part of his pension money amounting to N$621 424.25 is currently held in the trust account of his legal practitioner.

Since his pension has been subjected to the restraint order, Esau says he cannot use it towards his legal fees.

“I am further advised that section 37(A)(1) of the Pension Funds Act explicitly sets out that benefits derived from a pension fund pay-out cannot be liable for attachment or subjected to any form of execution enabled by a judgment or order of court,” he says.

He submits that because of the Pension Funds Act, he is entitled to have direct access to his pension benefits and money which he wants to use in any manner he deems fit because it cannot be part of a restraint order.

“The provisional restraint order should not be made final against my property,” he says.

Julia Heita

Related Posts

Read Also ... x