Bail ruling on Monday

FRED GOEIEMAN



The two Chinese nationals and a Namibian allegedly involved in the N$3.5 billion money-laundering fraud will hear on Monday whether they will be released on bail.

Magistrate Sebby Alweendo Venatius postponed the matter yesterday after hearing arguments by the State and defence counsel.

Defence lawyer Sisa Namandje maintained that the State did not have a strong case.

He argued that on technical and procedural aspects the State’s case was bound to collapse.

According to him the State has dirty hands due to the “abusive procedure” in the arrest of his Chinese clients, Huizhong Tao and Huan Jinrong. The two, together with Julius Laurentius, are charged with three counts of money laundering and one of fraud.

Namandje alleged that the police did not have a warrant to search Huizhong’s home.

“If there was such a search warrant they should have produced it in court,” he argued.

He asked the court to grant his clients bail of N$50 000 and N$100 000, which they would be able to pay.

“We are living in hard times in Namibia where the police are even unable to provide transport to court orderlies. They have announced that they will forthwith cease to subsidise officers studying at tertiary institutions,” he said, justifying the bail amounts he requested.

In his argument Namandje said there was a difference between the State’s case in a court of law and its case on the charge sheet.

He further argued that in Namibia accused persons were entitled to docket disclosure by the police and that the State prosecutor had the public duty to prosecute in a fair and just manner.

“The State must be exemplary in all its conduct. The State prosecutor does not have the right to force things and if the Supreme Court makes a ruling the State must respect it,” Namandje emphasised.

He further came down hard on Chief Inspector John Mutongwe, the investigating officer in the case.

Mutongwe apparently during cross-examination remarked: “Please do not force me to say something which will favour the accused.”

The defence lawyer said the investigating officer should be fair to the accused.

“The court should not condone this type of action that will prejudice accused persons,” he submitted.

He said it was not clear whether the accused acquired the property in a dubious manner, whether they possessed it unlawfully, or imported or exported it illegally.

“You cannot just arrest and bring people to court because you want to charge them,” he argued.

Namandje further said that the State did not place evidence before court to substantiate the fraud charge.

According to him the High Court had cautioned investigating officers and prosecutors to refrain from allegations that they could not verify.

He added that even foreign fishermen arrested for illegal fishing, who lived on their vessels, were granted bail.

Louis Botes (SC), appearing for Laurentius, argued that the seriousness of the offence alone had no relevance to the purpose of bail and added that in granting bail the spirit of the constitution should be the guideline and not the public interest.

He further argued that the fact that investigations were not completed should allow bail to be granted.

On the issue that the accused may interfere with State witnesses, he said no witnesses were mentioned and it was not stated whether their statements had been taken.

“The court is entitled to grant bail because the State did not put its case forward,” Botes submitted.

He added there was no case made against his client on the charge of money laundering.

Botes further argued that there was no evidence that his client was aware of irregularities in the company and that the auditor admitted he could not point a finger at Laurentius.

“You do not arrest people and keep them in custody. This is a court of law and not court of suspicion,” he argued.

Rowen van Wyk is appearing for the State.