No more delay-rot in Fishrot as court blocks further postponements
The corruption trial has come to epitomise stalled accountability in Namibia
After years of hovering at the starting line, a High Court judge this week signalled a determination to let the Fishrot trial finally proceed.
For more than four years, the Fishrot corruption case has been stuck in a legal holding pattern.
The courtroom has been busy, but not with witnesses. Instead, it has been filled with applications, appeals and arguments that the trial should not yet begin. This week, that long season of delay met its firmest judicial response yet.
In a ruling delivered in Windhoek this month, acting High Court judge Marilize du Plessis dismissed most of the latest attempts by former justice minister Sacky Shanghala and several co-accused to postpone the criminal trial, making it clear that the court would no longer allow parallel litigation to stall the prosecution indefinitely.
She observed that application after application had been brought before the courts tasked with managing the matter. She said the High Court had already shown “considerable accommodation” to the defence over the years.
In her view, the lengthy postponement now sought was neither necessary nor expedient.
At the centre of the latest delay bid was a civil application launched in November 2025, in which Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo and Otneel Shuudifonya asked the High Court to restrain the Prosecutor-General from proceeding with the Fishrot prosecution.
The applicants argued that the trial should not proceed until the court rules on their claims that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) acted unlawfully in gathering evidence.
That civil matter was followed by a further application in December 2025, asking that the start of the criminal trial be deferred pending the outcome of what the defence described as a “pre-emptive collateral review” of the ACC’s conduct.
The accused argued that proceeding with the trial before those issues were resolved would be unfair and prejudicial.
Wait a little bit more
This month, the defence returned to court, again urging postponement.
This time, they added that the criminal proceedings should wait for the outcome of a Supreme Court appeal linked to restraint orders granted under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA). Those restraint orders date back to November 2020, and a key High Court ruling in May 2023 confirmed that the restrained assets would remain frozen until the conclusion of the criminal case.
Du Plessis rejected the argument that the existence of these cases required the Fishrot trial to be suspended. She pointed out that criminal courts routinely proceed while related civil or appellate matters are ongoing and that no higher court has ordered the prosecution to stop. She also rejected claims that trial dates were being forced on the accused, noting that the March 2026 dates had been set after consultation with all parties.
One limited concession was made by the judge, who granted additional preparation time linked to legal representation for one accused. Otherwise, the court cleared the way for the trial to resume from 9 to 20 March.
Legal manoeuvres
The ruling carries particular weight for Shanghala.
As a former attorney general and justice minister, he is intimately familiar with the mechanics of procedural law.
Since his arrest, his legal strategy has repeatedly leaned on the argument that unresolved applications elsewhere must first be finalised before the State can lead evidence.
This week’s ruling sharply narrows that strategy.
Du Plessis also aligned her reasoning with earlier guidance from the Supreme Court, which, in March 2023, while dealing with Fishrot-related bail appeals, held that questions about the legality of evidence are matters for the trial court to determine, not grounds to prevent a trial from starting.
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the accused. Fishrot has become a symbol of delayed accountability in Namibia, a case in which public expectations have long been frustrated by legal complexity.
Time to move forward
By refusing to allow further open-ended postponement, the court has signalled a shift from procedural containment to substantive reckoning.
Whether this truly marks the end of delay tactics will only be confirmed when witnesses finally take the stand. But the message from the bench is unmistakable.
The Fishrot case can no longer remain stuck in motion. After years of circling the starting line, the trial has been pointed in the right direction. And for the first time in a long while, the law appears determined to make it move.
The courtroom has been busy, but not with witnesses. Instead, it has been filled with applications, appeals and arguments that the trial should not yet begin. This week, that long season of delay met its firmest judicial response yet.
In a ruling delivered in Windhoek this month, acting High Court judge Marilize du Plessis dismissed most of the latest attempts by former justice minister Sacky Shanghala and several co-accused to postpone the criminal trial, making it clear that the court would no longer allow parallel litigation to stall the prosecution indefinitely.
She observed that application after application had been brought before the courts tasked with managing the matter. She said the High Court had already shown “considerable accommodation” to the defence over the years.
In her view, the lengthy postponement now sought was neither necessary nor expedient.
At the centre of the latest delay bid was a civil application launched in November 2025, in which Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo and Otneel Shuudifonya asked the High Court to restrain the Prosecutor-General from proceeding with the Fishrot prosecution.
The applicants argued that the trial should not proceed until the court rules on their claims that the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) acted unlawfully in gathering evidence.
That civil matter was followed by a further application in December 2025, asking that the start of the criminal trial be deferred pending the outcome of what the defence described as a “pre-emptive collateral review” of the ACC’s conduct.
The accused argued that proceeding with the trial before those issues were resolved would be unfair and prejudicial.
Wait a little bit more
This month, the defence returned to court, again urging postponement.
This time, they added that the criminal proceedings should wait for the outcome of a Supreme Court appeal linked to restraint orders granted under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA). Those restraint orders date back to November 2020, and a key High Court ruling in May 2023 confirmed that the restrained assets would remain frozen until the conclusion of the criminal case.
Du Plessis rejected the argument that the existence of these cases required the Fishrot trial to be suspended. She pointed out that criminal courts routinely proceed while related civil or appellate matters are ongoing and that no higher court has ordered the prosecution to stop. She also rejected claims that trial dates were being forced on the accused, noting that the March 2026 dates had been set after consultation with all parties.
One limited concession was made by the judge, who granted additional preparation time linked to legal representation for one accused. Otherwise, the court cleared the way for the trial to resume from 9 to 20 March.
Legal manoeuvres
The ruling carries particular weight for Shanghala.
As a former attorney general and justice minister, he is intimately familiar with the mechanics of procedural law.
Since his arrest, his legal strategy has repeatedly leaned on the argument that unresolved applications elsewhere must first be finalised before the State can lead evidence.
This week’s ruling sharply narrows that strategy.
Du Plessis also aligned her reasoning with earlier guidance from the Supreme Court, which, in March 2023, while dealing with Fishrot-related bail appeals, held that questions about the legality of evidence are matters for the trial court to determine, not grounds to prevent a trial from starting.
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the accused. Fishrot has become a symbol of delayed accountability in Namibia, a case in which public expectations have long been frustrated by legal complexity.
Time to move forward
By refusing to allow further open-ended postponement, the court has signalled a shift from procedural containment to substantive reckoning.
Whether this truly marks the end of delay tactics will only be confirmed when witnesses finally take the stand. But the message from the bench is unmistakable.
The Fishrot case can no longer remain stuck in motion. After years of circling the starting line, the trial has been pointed in the right direction. And for the first time in a long while, the law appears determined to make it move.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article