Hatuikulipi wants answers over his assets

One of the key suspects in the Fishrot case, James Hatuikulipi says a request by liquidators David Bruni and Ian McLaren to be released as curators bonis of the Fishrot assets raises serious concerns.A curator bonis is a legal representative appointed by a court to manage the finances, property or estate of another person unable to do so because of mental or physical incapacity.McLaren and Bruni were appointed in this capacity on 4 December 2020 by the Master of the High Court Elsie Beukes, in terms of the Administration of Estates Act 1965 and also in line with the Prevention of Organised Crime Act of 2004 (POCA).They have, however, since approached the Windhoek High Court to be relieved of their roles. In their application, the duo pointed out that their work was marred with frustrations which make effective management difficult, and that they do not have the capacity to manage the assets in question.Questions galoreIn an affidavit filed last Thursday, Hatuikulipi said the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has violated POCA by its refusal to hand over property that a court order requires them to surrender to the curators bonis.He questioned whether the ACC officials who refused to hand over the requested property are guilty of contravening the Act.One of the frustrations cited by Bruni and McLaren is that when they wanted to collect Hatuikulipi’s Range Rover for servicing, the ACC refused to hand it over because it is under attachment.In his affidavit, the former investment boss pointed out that the vehicle actually belongs to his co-accused, former justice minister Sacky Shanghala.“The founding papers do not deal with several significant issues, including what assets are still in the possession of the ACC. Who are the ACC officials who have refused to hand over the assets? What has happened to my property?” Hatuikulipi asked.“What has happened to the vehicle in the possession of the ACC, which apparently was not serviced? Were these the only instances in respect of which the value of property held by the defendants were subject to possible prejudice? Why did McLaren and Bruni not act sooner to protect the value of these assets?”He further questioned whether the curators bonis were obligated to inform the Fishrot accused of the risks their assets were being subjected to so they could take steps to prevent or mitigate these risks.Where’s the PG in all this?Hatuikulipi also questioned whether the Prosecutor-General (PG) was obligated to ensure members cooperated with the liquidators in their capacity as curators bonis, given the central role played by the ACC in the investigation.“Also, is the Master of the High Court, Elsie Beukes, not guilty of dereliction of duty, given the supervisory role she is required to play in the execution by Bruni and McLaren of their obligations as curators bonis?” he asked.Hatuikulipi said while he is not against the liquidators’ application to have their appointment terminated, he hopes this order will not be granted until mechanisms are put in place.He also argued that it is only the High Court that can give an order to terminate the appointment, not the Master of the Court. Given McLaren and Bruni’s reasons for their application, they shouldn&#039;t be the ones to bear the legal costs of the application, he added.jemima@namibiansun.com

Hatuikulipi wants answers over his assets

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-07-03

Please login to leave a comment

Hatuikulipi wants answers over his assets

Comments

Namibian Sun 2025-07-03

Please login to leave a comment

Login