Prosecutor appeals bail denial
A state prosecutor allegedly involved in a fraudulent scam to the tune of N$280 000 is appealing against the Magistrate's Court's refusal to grant him bail.
Ivan Tjizu, 30, who has been in custody since his arrest in December last year by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) maintains the magistrate erred in facts and law when refusing to grant him bail early this year.
He is accused of involvement in a scam in which witness fees were falsely claimed and paid out at the Windhoek Magistrate's Court.
Tjizu is being charged with three counts under the Anti-Corruption Act and one charge in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. He is accused of allegedly and corruptly used an office or position for gratification, corruptly used a false document, and is further also accused of conspiracy to commit offences under the Anti-Corruption Act, and racketeering.
It is alleged he obtained the money by making misrepresentations that witnesses had travelled from places outside Windhoek to testify.
The state further alleges that witness fees were paid out to people who were allegedly arranged to pose as witnesses and Tjizu is claimed to have received a part of the money, the ACC stated.
He yesterday argued in his appeal that the magistrate misconstrued the facts in his bail application.
He said it was ruled that he did not give a satisfactory explanation about a N$200 e-wallet from his phone to a cell number which he said he couldn't remember. He added that the issue was only brought to him during the proceedings.
According to Tjizu it is wrong for the court to accept the state's assertion that he will interfere with or influence state witnesses as they are unknown to him.
Judge Christie Liebenberg observed that the main reason his bail application was refused in the Magistrate's Court was that the investigation into the matter was not finalised as new evidence and witnesses are constantly coming up. Under such circumstances the possibility of his interference with the state witnesses could not be ruled out.
Tjizu argued the state cannot arrest him and only thereafter conclude its investigation.
“I had known about the state's investigation for about three months before I was arrested. I was informed by the control prosecutor at the Windhoek Magistrate's Court about it. Why would I now interfere with investigations risking bail if I am granted?” he argued.
He maintained that when there is fear of interference appropriate bail conditions should be imposed.
“It was a fatal misdirection from the learned magistrate to refuse bail on the fear of interference,” Tjizu argued and requested the court to consider granting him bail.
State advocate Dominic Lisulo argued that the issue of pending investigations and fear of interference was reasonable.
He further said a list containing documents found in Tjizu's house had connection with the police investigation.
“The magistrate was entitled to consider the possibility of interference as the offences were committed during the execution of his duties. The decision of the magistrate to refuse bail was properly taken,” Lisulo argued and emphasised that there is a prima facie case against the appellant.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Ivan Tjizu, 30, who has been in custody since his arrest in December last year by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) maintains the magistrate erred in facts and law when refusing to grant him bail early this year.
He is accused of involvement in a scam in which witness fees were falsely claimed and paid out at the Windhoek Magistrate's Court.
Tjizu is being charged with three counts under the Anti-Corruption Act and one charge in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. He is accused of allegedly and corruptly used an office or position for gratification, corruptly used a false document, and is further also accused of conspiracy to commit offences under the Anti-Corruption Act, and racketeering.
It is alleged he obtained the money by making misrepresentations that witnesses had travelled from places outside Windhoek to testify.
The state further alleges that witness fees were paid out to people who were allegedly arranged to pose as witnesses and Tjizu is claimed to have received a part of the money, the ACC stated.
He yesterday argued in his appeal that the magistrate misconstrued the facts in his bail application.
He said it was ruled that he did not give a satisfactory explanation about a N$200 e-wallet from his phone to a cell number which he said he couldn't remember. He added that the issue was only brought to him during the proceedings.
According to Tjizu it is wrong for the court to accept the state's assertion that he will interfere with or influence state witnesses as they are unknown to him.
Judge Christie Liebenberg observed that the main reason his bail application was refused in the Magistrate's Court was that the investigation into the matter was not finalised as new evidence and witnesses are constantly coming up. Under such circumstances the possibility of his interference with the state witnesses could not be ruled out.
Tjizu argued the state cannot arrest him and only thereafter conclude its investigation.
“I had known about the state's investigation for about three months before I was arrested. I was informed by the control prosecutor at the Windhoek Magistrate's Court about it. Why would I now interfere with investigations risking bail if I am granted?” he argued.
He maintained that when there is fear of interference appropriate bail conditions should be imposed.
“It was a fatal misdirection from the learned magistrate to refuse bail on the fear of interference,” Tjizu argued and requested the court to consider granting him bail.
State advocate Dominic Lisulo argued that the issue of pending investigations and fear of interference was reasonable.
He further said a list containing documents found in Tjizu's house had connection with the police investigation.
“The magistrate was entitled to consider the possibility of interference as the offences were committed during the execution of his duties. The decision of the magistrate to refuse bail was properly taken,” Lisulo argued and emphasised that there is a prima facie case against the appellant.
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article