‘Interests of justice’ keep Namdia diamond heist accused behind bars

Magistrate Atutala Shikalepo has dismissed the bail application of former Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) security officer Joel Angula, ruling that he must remain in custody until his trial concludes.

The magistrate determined that the interests of justice require he remain in custody.

“… the court finds that the interests of justice dictate that the accused’s detention be continued pending the finalisation of his trial,” Shikalepo ruled.

Angula has been in custody since his arrest on 19 January 2025 in connection with his alleged involvement in the N$315 million diamond heist at the Namdia headquarters in Windhoek.

The heist turned deadly, claiming the lives of the company’s head of security, Francis Eiseb, and a suspect, Max Endjala, who is Angula’s cousin.

In addition to murder, Angula faces seven other charges, including two counts of attempted murder, two counts of possession of rough and uncut diamonds, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and a count under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (Poca), for disguising the unlawful origins of property.

Burden of proof

In opposing bail, the prosecution relied on a witness statement from Ferdinard Vully, who claimed he met Angula and the late Max Endjala at Wanderers Stadium in 2024.

According to Vully, Angula allegedly raised the idea of a heist at Namdia and asked whether Vully would take part.

Angula denies that the conversation ever occurred.

The magistrate noted in her ruling that the court had considered submissions from Angula’s lawyer, who argued that evidence from the State’s second witness should be deemed inadmissible.

However, Shikalepo said bail proceedings do not require the same burden of proof as a trial.

The court also weighed evidence that Angula initially told police he did not know who had tied him up after the robbery, but later named the late Max Endjala – his cousin – and Sam Shololo, reportedly his uncle.

Police also recovered diamonds worth around N$4.7 million from Angula’s home after he consented to a search. Angula denies any knowledge of the gems and claims they were planted, pointing to the investigating officer’s admission that the crime scene was not properly secured.

Despite these disputes, the magistrate concluded that the State had established a prima facie case while noting that some charges could constitute duplication.

On the question of flight risk, the court noted that no evidence suggested Angula had attempted to abscond or was likely to abandon his family and property.

The State also raised ongoing investigations as a reason to oppose bail. However, the court heard that investigations are largely complete, with only a few diamonds still unaccounted for. The investigating officer confirmed that most witness statements had already been collected.

On the issue of potential witness interference, the prosecution argued that Angula was acquainted with some witnesses. The court described this claim as largely speculative, noting that courts do not act on assumptions and that no concrete evidence of possible interference had been presented.

The magistrate ultimately ruled that the interests of the public and the administration of justice outweighed the factors favouring his release.

The matter was postponed to 19 March.