Rape-accused rugby player Halupe granted N$10 000 bail
The Swakopmund Magistrates’ Court has granted bail to rape-accused Sidney Halupe after finding that the state failed to place credible evidence before the court to justify his continued detention or to show that his release would, at this stage, be contrary to the interests of justice.
Delivering his ruling on Monday, magistrate Rigaud Beukes held that although the charge against Halupe is serious, the prosecution did not substantiate its opposition to bail with sufficient evidence. The court found that much of the state’s case consisted of assertions and conclusions rather than proven facts.
“Overall, in my view, the respondents have failed to provide credible evidence that releasing the applicant on bail will be contrary to the interests of justice,” Beukes ruled.
Halupe (33) has been in custody since mid-December and spent the Christmas and New Year period behind bars while his formal bail application was finalised.
He faces a charge of rape read with the provisions of the Combating of Rape Act, arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on 1 December 2025 near the Nonidas pipeline outside Swakopmund, involving a 20-year-old woman. Halupe has denied the charge, maintaining that the sexual encounter was consensual.
The state opposed bail on four grounds: that Halupe might interfere with the investigation or witnesses; that his release would not be in the interest of the public or the administration of justice; that he posed a flight risk; and that the state had established a prima facie case against him.
Addressing the issue of a prima facie case, the court noted that the state relied primarily on provisions of the Combating of Rape Act that define coercive circumstances as threats—verbal or through conduct—that cause harm other than bodily harm. The court found that while the state appeared to rely on the complainant’s alleged discomfort and on an instruction allegedly given by the accused not to disclose the incident, no substantiated evidence was presented to show that such instructions were accompanied by express or implied threats, or that the complainant resisted.
The court also scrutinised the state’s reliance on a medical report stating that “rape cannot be ruled out”. Beukes held that this wording did not establish that rape had occurred and amounted to an assertion or interpretation rather than proof of coercive circumstances.
An optometrist’s letter submitted by the state to highlight the complainant’s visual impairment was provisionally accepted but afforded limited weight. The court found that the letter merely confirmed the existence of a visual impairment and did not indicate that the complainant was incapable of understanding the nature of the sexual act or deprived of the opportunity to communicate unwillingness, as contemplated by the Act.
“Ultimately, this court must determine, on a prima facie basis, whether the complainant’s disability rendered her incapable of exercising her free will,” Beukes stated, finding that this threshold had not been met at the bail stage.
On the question of abscondment, the court held that the seriousness of the charge alone was insufficient to justify a refusal of bail. Beukes pointed to Halupe’s strong family ties in Swakopmund, his ownership of immovable property, business interests, participation in national rugby, and stated political aspirations. These factors, the court found, suggested that the accused was likely to stand trial and clear his name.
The court further addressed the state’s claim that Halupe attempted to interfere with witnesses after becoming aware of the case. While it was common cause that Halupe attempted to contact the complainant and another potential witness on 12 December 2025—the day of his arrest—the court found that this conduct, on its own, did not establish attempted interference. Beukes accepted that alternative explanations existed, including Halupe’s testimony that the attempted contact was business-related, and found no credible evidence to the contrary. Allegations relating to the accused’s mother visiting a potential witness were similarly rejected as grounds for refusing bail.
Halupe was granted bail in the amount of N$10 000, subject to strict conditions. He is prohibited from interfering with police investigations or state witnesses, may not contact or approach the complainant, must report to the Swakopmund Police Station twice a week, must notify the investigating officer of any intention to leave the district, and must surrender any travel documents in his possession.
The matter was postponed to 1 May for further proceedings.
Delivering his ruling on Monday, magistrate Rigaud Beukes held that although the charge against Halupe is serious, the prosecution did not substantiate its opposition to bail with sufficient evidence. The court found that much of the state’s case consisted of assertions and conclusions rather than proven facts.
“Overall, in my view, the respondents have failed to provide credible evidence that releasing the applicant on bail will be contrary to the interests of justice,” Beukes ruled.
Halupe (33) has been in custody since mid-December and spent the Christmas and New Year period behind bars while his formal bail application was finalised.
He faces a charge of rape read with the provisions of the Combating of Rape Act, arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on 1 December 2025 near the Nonidas pipeline outside Swakopmund, involving a 20-year-old woman. Halupe has denied the charge, maintaining that the sexual encounter was consensual.
The state opposed bail on four grounds: that Halupe might interfere with the investigation or witnesses; that his release would not be in the interest of the public or the administration of justice; that he posed a flight risk; and that the state had established a prima facie case against him.
Addressing the issue of a prima facie case, the court noted that the state relied primarily on provisions of the Combating of Rape Act that define coercive circumstances as threats—verbal or through conduct—that cause harm other than bodily harm. The court found that while the state appeared to rely on the complainant’s alleged discomfort and on an instruction allegedly given by the accused not to disclose the incident, no substantiated evidence was presented to show that such instructions were accompanied by express or implied threats, or that the complainant resisted.
The court also scrutinised the state’s reliance on a medical report stating that “rape cannot be ruled out”. Beukes held that this wording did not establish that rape had occurred and amounted to an assertion or interpretation rather than proof of coercive circumstances.
An optometrist’s letter submitted by the state to highlight the complainant’s visual impairment was provisionally accepted but afforded limited weight. The court found that the letter merely confirmed the existence of a visual impairment and did not indicate that the complainant was incapable of understanding the nature of the sexual act or deprived of the opportunity to communicate unwillingness, as contemplated by the Act.
“Ultimately, this court must determine, on a prima facie basis, whether the complainant’s disability rendered her incapable of exercising her free will,” Beukes stated, finding that this threshold had not been met at the bail stage.
On the question of abscondment, the court held that the seriousness of the charge alone was insufficient to justify a refusal of bail. Beukes pointed to Halupe’s strong family ties in Swakopmund, his ownership of immovable property, business interests, participation in national rugby, and stated political aspirations. These factors, the court found, suggested that the accused was likely to stand trial and clear his name.
The court further addressed the state’s claim that Halupe attempted to interfere with witnesses after becoming aware of the case. While it was common cause that Halupe attempted to contact the complainant and another potential witness on 12 December 2025—the day of his arrest—the court found that this conduct, on its own, did not establish attempted interference. Beukes accepted that alternative explanations existed, including Halupe’s testimony that the attempted contact was business-related, and found no credible evidence to the contrary. Allegations relating to the accused’s mother visiting a potential witness were similarly rejected as grounds for refusing bail.
Halupe was granted bail in the amount of N$10 000, subject to strict conditions. He is prohibited from interfering with police investigations or state witnesses, may not contact or approach the complainant, must report to the Swakopmund Police Station twice a week, must notify the investigating officer of any intention to leave the district, and must surrender any travel documents in his possession.
The matter was postponed to 1 May for further proceedings.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article