State concedes it erred in ammo case

Testimony by a firearm specialist that the 201 cartridges found on a machine gun belt on a farm last year can be fired from a .308 rifle legally owned by the accused led the State to concede they had not led sufficient evidence to prove his guilt on a charge of illegal possession of ammunition.

A public prosecutor at the lower court in Otjiwarongo, Colleen Yisa, told the court during final submissions on Wednesday that the state conceded that Norman Alexander Campbell owned a licensed firearm capable of firing the 7.62x51 bullets found clipped to an ammunition belt in a storeroom on his farm last year.

According to the Act, any person found in possession of ammunition must prove it can be fired from a legally owned firearm.

Campbell is facing four counts of illegal possession of ammunition, with the first three related to a total of 15 loose cartridges found in his house, six on top of the gun safe and the rest in a gun cleaning bowl.

The fourth charge was the illegal possession of the 201 cartridges that were found on a 'machine-gun belt' in his storeroom. Earlier this week Campbell testified that he had not been aware of the ammunition belt and that it could likely have been his late father's.

Yisa on Wednesday said the State did not dispute and conceded the testimony led by a State witness earlier this week, the police's head of firearms division Ignatius Nangombe, that the cartridges could be fired by Campbell's .308 rifle.

“Whether it was from a belt or not, it is capable of being fired from that firearm,” Yisa told Magistrate Toini Shilongo.

Another concession made by the State on Wednesday was related to a number of trial exhibits consisting of camouflage jackets, boxes and military canvas bags confiscated by the police during the raid last year.

Yisa told the court the exhibits were irrelevant to the charges against the accused.

“They are irrelevant. The State concedes they ought not to have been lawfully confiscated from the accused.”

Yisa argued that the State had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Campbell should be found guilty on the first, second and third charges.



Slapdash police work

Advocate Danie Small on Wednesday slammed various elements of the “slapdash” investigation that led to and followed Campbell's arrest in April last year.

During final submissions Small told the court that the evidence led by the State was tainted by the way the investigation had been handled.

He referred to the manner in which the search warrant was issued, arguing that the warrant was issued on the basis of inadmissible hearsay.

Small argued that the police had confirmed on the stand that the search warrant was issued after an informant had claimed there was illegal ammunition and possibly firearms on farm Capricorn, the farm owned by Campbell.

He argued that the search warrant was issued on inadmissible evidence as a warrant could not be issued on mere suspicion or speculation. He described the raid on the farm as “a fishing expedition” which infringed on his client's rights.

He said no witness statement or statement under oath from the informant was presented to prove the need for a warrant.

Small also referred to Campbell's testimony that he had not been informed of his rights on the day of his arrest, especially his right to legal counsel.

Small argued that had Campbell been informed of his rights before the raid began, the warrant would likely have been set aside if legal steps were taken against the manner in which it was issued.

“We know today that the warrant should not have been issued on the so-called evidence placed before the magistrate.”

He asked that the court rule out any statements made by Campbell before and after his arrest, noting that police officers have a duty to explain the rights of the accused in detail.

“How police officers still think that they can explain away deliberate inadequate explanations to suspects or accused and then present evidence of explanations or admissions baffles the mind,” Small said.

In reference to the four charges against Campbell, Small argued that the term “possession” comprises two main elements, namely a physical element as well as a mental element.

He argued that the State had not proven that Campbell's possession of the ammunition was intended as an illegal act.

Judgment will be delivered on 24 May at the Otjiwarongo Magistrate's Court.

JANA-MARI SMITH