'Flight risk’ keeps cannabis accused behind bars

Armand Schultz will remain in custody while his two co-accused are out on bail after the High Court dismissed his appeal against the refusal of bail, finding that he remains a flight risk in the alleged N$52 million, 1.55-hectare cannabis plantation case.

High Court judges Claudia Claasen and Eileen Rakow on Tuesday ruled that Schultz, who is represented by defence lawyer Wihan Brand, failed to prove that he was a suitable candidate for release on bail.

His co-accused, South African national David van der Linden and Johannes Kamati, were previously granted bail of N$260 000 and N$50 000, respectively.

The case stems from a police operation conducted at Farm Eendrag near Hochfeld in May 2025, where officers uncovered a 1.55-hectare cannabis and sorghum plantation allegedly worth about N$52 million. Schultz, Van der Linden and Kamati were arrested following the discovery.

Multiple concerns

Schultz initially applied for bail in the Okahandja District Court, but his application was refused in late March this year. He subsequently appealed that decision to the High Court.

He has been charged with dealing in, or alternatively possessing, dependence-producing drugs under the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances Act, as well as money laundering under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

In dismissing the appeal, the judges found that the State had presented sufficient evidence during proceedings to establish a strong prima facie case.

"Although he is married to a Namibian national, there are multiple other concerns. He is a foreign national, awaiting the outcome of his domicile application. He has no fixed assets within Namibia and lacks a firm residential address... his financial evidence was inconsistent," the judgment noted.

The court further held that the seriousness of the charges, the potential sentence if convicted, the alleged commercial scale of the operation and the risk of abscondment meant that bail conditions would not sufficiently mitigate the risks.

"The mere promise by an accused to abide by bail conditions is not the only determinant," the judges found, adding that bail decisions require a holistic assessment of all relevant factors.

The court also noted that in cases involving multiple accused, the possibility of one accused absconding could delay proceedings against the others and undermine the administration of justice.