Judge to decide end of June on inmates’ delayed sentence relief
Remission to be credited upfront as an incentive for good behaviour
The five men were eligible to be considered for remission upon recommendation from the National Release Board in a September 2023 judgment.
Five inmates declared eligible for sentence remission in September 2023 have launched an urgent High Court application seeking enforcement of that judgment.
The five applicants, Rachimo Haradoeb (54), Veikko Shalimba (46), Anton Venasi (57), David Tsamaseb (49), and Simon Josef Kankondi (46), claim prison authorities have failed to implement the court’s orders.
They are arguing their case based on interpretations of the old Prison Act of 1998 and the current Correctional Act.
Judge Eileen Rakow postponed judgment on whether the urgent application was successful until the end of June because it was not ready for delivery last Friday as initially scheduled.
Contempt of court
The group approached the court two years ago, arguing that they were entitled to a one-third remission of their sentences in terms of section 92 of the now-repealed Prisons Act 17 of 1998.
In a September 2023 judgment, Deputy Judge President Hosea Angula declared that the five men were eligible to be considered for remission upon recommendation from the National Release Board.
The judge held that remission is to be credited upfront at the start of incarceration and serves as an incentive for good behaviour.
The court also ruled that although the Prisons Act has been repealed, the relevant structures – including the home affairs minister, the Namibia Correctional Services (NCS) Commissioner-General, and the National Release Board – still exist and can carry out the remission process under the Correctional Service Act.
Despite this judgment, the applicants say NCS has failed to implement the order.
They accuse NCS of never assessing them as required within 60 days of the court’s directive and that the remission credits they received fell short of what was due to them.
Judge Angula, who removed the matter from court roll, declared it finalised and issued no order regarding costs.
“However, because of the lack of implementation, we have been forced to return to court to assert their rights”, reads Haradoeb's founding affidavit.
Serving 183 years
Haradoeb was sentenced to 35 years in 2006 for murder and arson.
With remission, he expected his sentence to reduce to 23 years and six months and now claims to have served enough time to qualify for parole.
Shalimba received 36 years in 2009 for robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Venasi got 39 years in 2001 for multiple offences, including murder and robbery.
Tsamaseb was sentenced to 39 years in 2001 for robbery and housebreaking, while Kankondi received 35 years and five months in 2003 for murder, arson, and assault.
The group say they were officially notified in February 2025 that the Correctional Service Act did not apply to them in terms of parole eligibility.
In addition to parole eligibility, the applicants are also requesting that the court order them to be fully credited with the correct one-third remission they believe they are entitled to.
They claim the remission credited to them was incomplete and contrary to the court’s original order.
Ministry's response
Home affairs ministry, through its lawyer Ruth Nghishekwa, argued that the Correctional Service Act does not allow parole eligibility based on a reduced sentence through remission.
They said remission doesn't shorten the original sentence and that offenders must still serve two-thirds of their full term to qualify for parole.
They also questioned the legal basis of the application, noting that parole provisions under the current law do not apply to sentences imposed under the repealed Prisons Act of 1998.
The five applicants, Rachimo Haradoeb (54), Veikko Shalimba (46), Anton Venasi (57), David Tsamaseb (49), and Simon Josef Kankondi (46), claim prison authorities have failed to implement the court’s orders.
They are arguing their case based on interpretations of the old Prison Act of 1998 and the current Correctional Act.
Judge Eileen Rakow postponed judgment on whether the urgent application was successful until the end of June because it was not ready for delivery last Friday as initially scheduled.
Contempt of court
The group approached the court two years ago, arguing that they were entitled to a one-third remission of their sentences in terms of section 92 of the now-repealed Prisons Act 17 of 1998.
In a September 2023 judgment, Deputy Judge President Hosea Angula declared that the five men were eligible to be considered for remission upon recommendation from the National Release Board.
The judge held that remission is to be credited upfront at the start of incarceration and serves as an incentive for good behaviour.
The court also ruled that although the Prisons Act has been repealed, the relevant structures – including the home affairs minister, the Namibia Correctional Services (NCS) Commissioner-General, and the National Release Board – still exist and can carry out the remission process under the Correctional Service Act.
Despite this judgment, the applicants say NCS has failed to implement the order.
They accuse NCS of never assessing them as required within 60 days of the court’s directive and that the remission credits they received fell short of what was due to them.
Judge Angula, who removed the matter from court roll, declared it finalised and issued no order regarding costs.
“However, because of the lack of implementation, we have been forced to return to court to assert their rights”, reads Haradoeb's founding affidavit.
Serving 183 years
Haradoeb was sentenced to 35 years in 2006 for murder and arson.
With remission, he expected his sentence to reduce to 23 years and six months and now claims to have served enough time to qualify for parole.
Shalimba received 36 years in 2009 for robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Venasi got 39 years in 2001 for multiple offences, including murder and robbery.
Tsamaseb was sentenced to 39 years in 2001 for robbery and housebreaking, while Kankondi received 35 years and five months in 2003 for murder, arson, and assault.
The group say they were officially notified in February 2025 that the Correctional Service Act did not apply to them in terms of parole eligibility.
In addition to parole eligibility, the applicants are also requesting that the court order them to be fully credited with the correct one-third remission they believe they are entitled to.
They claim the remission credited to them was incomplete and contrary to the court’s original order.
Ministry's response
Home affairs ministry, through its lawyer Ruth Nghishekwa, argued that the Correctional Service Act does not allow parole eligibility based on a reduced sentence through remission.
They said remission doesn't shorten the original sentence and that offenders must still serve two-thirds of their full term to qualify for parole.
They also questioned the legal basis of the application, noting that parole provisions under the current law do not apply to sentences imposed under the repealed Prisons Act of 1998.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article