By: Justicia Shipena
The lawyer of former National Fishing Corporation of Namibia (Fishcor) boss Mike Nghipunya, Thabang Phatela, says no evidence can be used before the court that a document retrieved from Nghipunya’s computer was not tempered or imposed to create the content of the paper.
This comes as Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) lead investigator Andreas Kanyangela had previously testified in his evidence-in-chief that Nghipunya has an undisclosed interest in Njako Investment CC.
The company is owned by his co-accused Otneel Shuudifonya and Wanakadu Investment CC by Philipus Mwapopi.
According to Kanyangela’s testimony, the agreements were obtained via Nghipunya’s computer.
“There is no evidence that the alleged document was not edited, added, or altered after removing it from my client’s possession,” said Phatela.
He added that the document accompanied no descriptive certificate.
Phatela said when the information on the memorandum of understanding was extracted from the device alleged to belong to Nghipunya, he was not present.
This was also confirmed by the ACC investigator in court on Wednesday while testifying in the bail application of the six men charged in the fishrot fraud and corruption scandal.
He added that there is no evidence that the documents were not manipulated.
“That is correct,” said Kanyangela.
“There is also no evidence or certificate from anyone that the document was retrieved in its original form,” Phatela stressed.
However, the ACC investigator argues that there are statements that the Deloitte people have that extracted such information.
“Yes, but we don’t have that statement before the court,” Nghipunya’s lawyer said.
Phatela added that there is no further evidence before the court that the computer from which the documents were retrieved was used by the person who is alleged to be in control of the message.
“There is no information that it was preserved and the method in which it was preserved.”
He stressed that there is no certificate to prove how and which method of preservation was used by the individual who extracted the information.
“We have a statement of the person who provided the device; however, it is not before the court,” said Kanyangela
Phatela emphasised that there are no server details provided about the agreement.
“There is no report provided to us pertaining to the authentication process of this document,” he added.
Phatela argued in court that the agreements were not signed and thus could have been fabricated.
He further argued that there is no original version of the document before the court.
“We only have this copy that is here. My client testified that the signature on the document is not his, and it is an electronic signature on one of the computers that he was utilising,” he said.
“The agreements between Nghippunya and Mwapopi was only signed by Nghipunya,” said Kanyangela .
A business agreement between Nghipunya and Mwapopi’s company Wanakadu Investment CC was presented before the court last year.
However, Mwapopi and Nghipunya denied entering into a business agreement.
The Windhoek City Police officer also said he did not sign the agreement, nor did he know it.
According to him, Wanakadu Investment supplied dried fish products to Fishcor for a drought aid program to the value of N$4,2 million.
Mwapopi has a 100% interest in Wanakadu, and he told the court he is the only member.
State advocate Cliff Lutibezi had told the court that the dried fish was never delivered.
When questioned about the matter, Mwapopi argued that the dried fish was delivered to fishcor, and the secretary of Fishcor signed it off.
Lutibezi also previously questioned Nghipunya on an agreement between him and Otneel Shuudifonya.
Nghipunya then stood his ground and also distanced himself from the agreement.
Additionally, Shuudifonya also denied he had any link to any fishing quotas.
He said the payment between Locki Investment CC and Njako Investment CC had nothing to do with quotas.
According to him, the payments align with the agreement that the two parties signed.
“There is no money linked to fishing quotas that came to my company. The services were rendered, the clients were happy, and the payment was made. I have the right to trade with anyone.”
