‘Fishrot Six’ turn attention to trial after bail bid fails

Lawyers representing six Fishrot accused whose bail bid failed in the Supreme Court yesterday said their clients will now focus on preparing for the main trial, scheduled for October.

All hopes for the six men to be out of the holding cells pending trial were dashed after the apex court dismissed their application against High Court judge Shafimana Uietele’s decision to deny them bail in April last year.

The application was lodged by former justice minister Sacky Shanghala, former chairperson of the National Fishing Corporation of Namibia (Fishcor) board James Hatuikulipi and former Fishcor CEO Mike Nghipunya as well as Pius Mwatelulo, Otneel Shuudifonya and Phillipus Mwapopi.

In the Fishrot scandal, a number of prominent politicians and businessmen are accused of running schemes to get control of valuable fishing quotas, for example those held by state fishing company Fishcor.

It is alleged that they then diverted these quotas to Icelandic fishing company Samherji in return for kickbacks. All accused men deny any wrongdoing.

Lucius Murorua, one of the lawyers acting on behalf of the Fishrot accused, described the dismissal as "devastating", but said they will turn their focus to the matters pending in the High Court.

“Obviously immensely disappointed, but this is not the end of the road. We have to focus on the matters in the High Court. Essentially, for the main trial that needs to begin to roll out in the High Court, there are some pre-trial proceedings that need to be attended to,” he said.

Admissibility

Acting appeal judges Theo Frank, Jeremiah Shongwe and Kananelo Mosito heard arguments recently and delivered the judgment yesterday, read by Frank.

One of the six main pillars of the Fishrot Six’s appeal for leave to challenge Ueitele’s ruling was the admissibility of evidence and the manner in which the investigation into the alleged bribery scheme was conducted.

However, the Supreme Court argued that these attacks are without merit. The judges also pointed out that an argument by the accused - that Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) investigator Andreas Kanyangela not knowing whether Icelandic whistle-blower Johannes Stefánsson will be able to testify will weaken the State’s case - is also without merit.

“None of the appellants gave evidence under oath and in respect of the money flow that was substantiated by documentary evidence. Kanyangela’s evidence was not disputed in any meaningful way,” they said.

“This meant, prima facie, the State established that it has a strong case against the appellants.”

The Fishrot accused also argued that the State’s case against them is weak and that the refusal of bail was likely to result in innocent persons languishing in prison while the trial proceeds.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the State’s investigation already established that large amounts of money ended up in the accounts of the accused persons, including the appellants, their business partners or entities in which they have interests.

“The money trail is corroborated by documentary evidence obtained from the relevant bank accounts. Probably realising that should the State establish the money trail, an explanation would have to be forthcoming from the accused persons, Mike Ngihpunya, Otneel Nandetonga Shuudifonya and Phillipus Mwapopi gave evidence under oath so as to explain the monies that ended up in entities in which they have or had an interest in.”

Not so compelling

Frank added: “The submission on their behalf is that their evidence in this regard is so compelling that it tends to show that the State has a very weak case against them”.

However, “their explanations are not as compelling as suggested by their counsel and their explanations will have to be assessed in due course in the light of all the evidence".

The judges said the accused’s explanations still leave the issue of payments unresolved.

“As the matter stands in this bail application, the State made out a prima facie case that the payments and the manner in which they were done were part of the corrupt scheme and that the method of distribution of such monies amounts to money laundering - a Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) offence.”

[email protected]