Four against one in Windhoek court
ACC investigator remains cool under fire
As a key prosecution witness, ACC chief investigator Oberty Inambao has held his ground while being cross-examined by a formidable team of defence lawyers in the Enercon–Namcor courtroom saga.
The Windhoek Magistrate’s Court has seen its share of verbal jousts, but nothing quite like this.
For two straight weeks, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) chief investigator Oberty Inambao has stood alone on the witness stand, facing formidable defence lawyers in the N$53 million Enercon-Namcor bail fight – among them Sisa Namandje, whose courtroom presence alone can unnerve the best.
The team of defence lawyers for the accused includes Namandje, who is defending the Elindis - Peter, Malakia and Lydia, while Ileni Gebhardt is acting on behalf of Leo Nandago.
Francois Bangamwabo is appearing for former Namcor executives Immanuel Mulunga and Jennifer Hamukwaya, and Gilroy Kasper for Olivia Dunaiski.
Coming face-to-face with the mighty Sisa Namandje can feel like a trial by fire.
Namandje’s cross-examinations are statement and spectacle rolled into one – rapid questions, dramatic pauses, piercing stares.
Steady under fire
But Inambao hasn't flinched.
He cuts a calm but distinctive figure – broad-shouldered, measured in his speech, with a gaze that weighs every word hurled his way.
He wastes nothing. Pauses are deliberate; his answers are sometimes brief and sharp.
At other times, he takes his time to respond and often leaves the lawyers scrambling for the next question.
On day one, Namandje tried to dismiss him outright, describing him as “a danger to his own case” and asserting that the State’s “house is not in order”, even accusing the ACC of basing charges on provisions “that do not exist” in the law.
Rather than retreat, Inambao countered with a question that pierced the air.
“Why would Namcor, having already entered a fuel-supply deal with Enercon, buy assets and then not use them at all?”
As the questioning intensified, Inambao refused to be boxed into yes-or-no answers, insisting on explaining the context behind each response.
This has seemingly irked the defence.
Documented evidence
Even when defence lawyer Gerhardt said ACC investigators have no expertise to probe fuel-related matters, Inambao maintained his cool, retorting that while this was true, it did not weaken the case.
He said the investigation was already at an advanced stage, supported by witness statements, bank records and other documentary evidence.
Inambao said further arrests are expected, underscoring the scale and complexity of the matter.
Sometimes, his delivery is marked by a dry wit, the kind that disarms without resorting to raising his voice.
When accused of orchestrating media leaks, he didn’t bristle or protest – instead, he remarked evenly: “I even asked bystanders outside Mr Mulunga’s home to leave. Mr Mulunga was watching on CCTV. He can confirm that,” before pausing and adding, “I only regret not asking the driver to park further from the garage – the media could’ve got a better picture.”
At one point, Namandje turned to the magistrate and said: “Your Worship, the witness is frowning.”
Other defence lawyers also joined in.
Acted according to mandate
Bangamwabo, representing former Namcor MD Mulunga, told the ACC investigator in court: “The ACC and you have fallen into a trap of Namcor to be used to persecute and victimise my client.”
He went further, saying that no law allows for arrests over internal company policy breaches, challenging the ownership of a luxury vehicle allegedly gifted by a fugitive, and enquiring why documentation was not produced to support these claims.
Inambao responded that some arrests had to be made urgently and without warrants due to the risk of evidence being destroyed or compromised. He maintained that the ACC acted within its statutory authority and that internal breaches can amount to corruption under the law.
Regarding the vehicle, he said his statements were based on documented evidence and that ownership questions would be addressed in court.
Disrespect highlighted
The exchanges began to reveal an unusual dynamic.
At times, the defence lawyers, known for dominating courtrooms, appeared wary of him.
Their challenges carried an edge of defensiveness, as though aware that each question risked a counterstrike.
On occasion, their probing seemed to edge into pointed remarks and insinuations, perhaps in an attempt to unsettle the unflappable witness.
At one point, Inambao also confronted lawyer Gilroy Kasper.
“I think since yesterday, you have demonstrated elements of disrespect. Yesterday, you used the word nonsense. Today, you are saying the charges are pathetic. How do I answer if you say the charges are pathetic?” Inambao said cooly.
The exchange came after Kasper, representing Dunaiski, described the charges against his client as chaotic and pathetic, extending the tense stand-off between the two on yet another day of the Namcor–Enercon bail proceedings.
The bail applications, State closing submissions and the courtroom drama continue next week.
For two straight weeks, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) chief investigator Oberty Inambao has stood alone on the witness stand, facing formidable defence lawyers in the N$53 million Enercon-Namcor bail fight – among them Sisa Namandje, whose courtroom presence alone can unnerve the best.
The team of defence lawyers for the accused includes Namandje, who is defending the Elindis - Peter, Malakia and Lydia, while Ileni Gebhardt is acting on behalf of Leo Nandago.
Francois Bangamwabo is appearing for former Namcor executives Immanuel Mulunga and Jennifer Hamukwaya, and Gilroy Kasper for Olivia Dunaiski.
Coming face-to-face with the mighty Sisa Namandje can feel like a trial by fire.
Namandje’s cross-examinations are statement and spectacle rolled into one – rapid questions, dramatic pauses, piercing stares.
Steady under fire
But Inambao hasn't flinched.
He cuts a calm but distinctive figure – broad-shouldered, measured in his speech, with a gaze that weighs every word hurled his way.
He wastes nothing. Pauses are deliberate; his answers are sometimes brief and sharp.
At other times, he takes his time to respond and often leaves the lawyers scrambling for the next question.
On day one, Namandje tried to dismiss him outright, describing him as “a danger to his own case” and asserting that the State’s “house is not in order”, even accusing the ACC of basing charges on provisions “that do not exist” in the law.
Rather than retreat, Inambao countered with a question that pierced the air.
“Why would Namcor, having already entered a fuel-supply deal with Enercon, buy assets and then not use them at all?”
As the questioning intensified, Inambao refused to be boxed into yes-or-no answers, insisting on explaining the context behind each response.
This has seemingly irked the defence.
Documented evidence
Even when defence lawyer Gerhardt said ACC investigators have no expertise to probe fuel-related matters, Inambao maintained his cool, retorting that while this was true, it did not weaken the case.
He said the investigation was already at an advanced stage, supported by witness statements, bank records and other documentary evidence.
Inambao said further arrests are expected, underscoring the scale and complexity of the matter.
Sometimes, his delivery is marked by a dry wit, the kind that disarms without resorting to raising his voice.
When accused of orchestrating media leaks, he didn’t bristle or protest – instead, he remarked evenly: “I even asked bystanders outside Mr Mulunga’s home to leave. Mr Mulunga was watching on CCTV. He can confirm that,” before pausing and adding, “I only regret not asking the driver to park further from the garage – the media could’ve got a better picture.”
At one point, Namandje turned to the magistrate and said: “Your Worship, the witness is frowning.”
Other defence lawyers also joined in.
Acted according to mandate
Bangamwabo, representing former Namcor MD Mulunga, told the ACC investigator in court: “The ACC and you have fallen into a trap of Namcor to be used to persecute and victimise my client.”
He went further, saying that no law allows for arrests over internal company policy breaches, challenging the ownership of a luxury vehicle allegedly gifted by a fugitive, and enquiring why documentation was not produced to support these claims.
Inambao responded that some arrests had to be made urgently and without warrants due to the risk of evidence being destroyed or compromised. He maintained that the ACC acted within its statutory authority and that internal breaches can amount to corruption under the law.
Regarding the vehicle, he said his statements were based on documented evidence and that ownership questions would be addressed in court.
Disrespect highlighted
The exchanges began to reveal an unusual dynamic.
At times, the defence lawyers, known for dominating courtrooms, appeared wary of him.
Their challenges carried an edge of defensiveness, as though aware that each question risked a counterstrike.
On occasion, their probing seemed to edge into pointed remarks and insinuations, perhaps in an attempt to unsettle the unflappable witness.
At one point, Inambao also confronted lawyer Gilroy Kasper.
“I think since yesterday, you have demonstrated elements of disrespect. Yesterday, you used the word nonsense. Today, you are saying the charges are pathetic. How do I answer if you say the charges are pathetic?” Inambao said cooly.
The exchange came after Kasper, representing Dunaiski, described the charges against his client as chaotic and pathetic, extending the tense stand-off between the two on yet another day of the Namcor–Enercon bail proceedings.
The bail applications, State closing submissions and the courtroom drama continue next week.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article