Renthia Kaimbi
Former justice minister Sakeus Shanghala has lodged a formal complaint with the Law Society of Namibia against acting Prosecutor-General Olivia Imalwa and deputy Prosecutor-General Edmund Marondedze, accusing the two senior prosecutors of conduct that could amount to professional misconduct.
In a sworn complaint dated 5 November 2026, Shanghala asks the Law Society’s Disciplinary Committee to investigate a widely circulated audio recording allegedly capturing Marondedze making disparaging remarks about High Court and Supreme Court judges, discussing his influence over court proceedings and recounting how Imalwa allegedly instructed him to prosecute Shanghala.
The complaint, lodged under section 35(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1995, argues that the recording raises serious questions about prosecutorial independence, judicial integrity and the professional conduct expected of officers of the court.The recording reportedly surfaced in a WhatsApp group for prosecutors on 5 October 2026 before being deleted.
Shanghala says he subsequently obtained an electronic copy and commissioned NC Maischatz Transcription Services to transcribe and translate it into English on 2 November.
He says he recognises Marondedze’s voice, having known him personally and heard him address courts during nearly seven years of criminal proceedings against him.
However, he acknowledges that the speakers were not independently identified by the transcriber and wants an independent forensic examination to establish the recording’s authenticity and identify those involved.
Marondedze has previously denied that the recording originated from him or that he posted it to the prosecutors’ WhatsApp group.
Among the most serious allegations are remarks attributed to Marondedze about several High Court judges, whose competence and impartiality he allegedly questioned.
According to Shanghala’s translated transcript, Marondedze allegedly described one judge as someone who could not know anything, while referring to another as a racist. He also reportedly suggested that a judge’s appointment was influenced by her being white.
In another exchange, the second speaker, believed to be Marondedze’s son, allegedly remarked that black people appearing before certain judges were not listened to.
Marondedze reportedly agreed, saying: “Ja they don’t, unless if they know you.”
Shanghala argues that such statements, if authentic, constitute serious attacks on the judiciary by a senior prosecutor who regularly appears before the courts on behalf of the State.
He invokes Article 12(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an independent, impartial and competent court, and Article 78(3), which requires State organs to assist in protecting judicial independence, dignity and effectiveness.
He argues that concerns about judicial conduct should be raised through appropriate channels rather than through private conversations that could undermine public confidence in the courts.
The complaint also highlights remarks in which Marondedze allegedly claimed that Supreme Court judges listened to him and enjoyed his jokes.
When the second speaker reportedly suggested that judges only listened to people they liked, Marondedze allegedly responded: “Ja those guys listen to me.”
Shanghala argues that the remarks create the impression that personal relationships could influence judicial decisions. He says that even if Marondedze intended the comments as professional boasting, they were inappropriate for an officer of the court.
Another contentious passage concerns bail applications involving accused persons in the Fishrot proceedings. Marondedze allegedly said: “Right now I am going to give them bail, they have stayed too much.”
Shanghala argues that the remarks suggest Marondedze viewed bail as something within his authority to grant or withhold, although bail decisions are made by the courts.
He acknowledges that Marondedze could have been referring to whether the State would oppose bail applications but wants the disciplinary authorities to establish what he meant.
The complaint against Imalwa centres on an account in which Marondedze allegedly recounts a conversation with her in April 2019 concerning Shanghala.
According to the transcript, Marondedze says Imalwa approached him about the matter and told him she trusted him with the information because it was still secret.
He allegedly recounts telling her: “Don’t worry, Sackey I will prosecute him.”
Marondedze reportedly adds that he had no personal problem with Shanghala but would prosecute him, allegedly saying: “I don’t like someone who disrespects me.”
Shanghala argues that the conversation suggests a decision to prosecute him had already been communicated in April 2019, approximately seven months before his arrest on 27 November 2019.
He further points out that the Anti-Corruption Commission formally referred the investigation to the Prosecutor-General through letters dated 1 December 2020 and 25 January 2021, approximately 20 months after the alleged conversation.
He questions whether the decision to prosecute him was predetermined before investigators had completed their work and formally submitted the relevant dockets.
Shanghala wants Imalwa to explain whether she instructed Marondedze to prosecute him in April 2019 and, if so, what evidence or information informed that decision.
He maintains that the complaint is not intended to determine the merits of the Fishrot prosecution but to establish whether prosecutorial authority was exercised independently and for a proper purpose.
Shanghala also raises concerns about Marondedze allegedly disclosing confidential internal discussions within the Prosecutor-General’s Office to another legal practitioner.
He argues that the alleged disclosure of internal prosecutorial deliberations raises questions about confidentiality and professional responsibility.
He is asking the Law Society to obtain sworn responses from both practitioners, preserve the original recording and relevant WhatsApp records, and appoint an independent forensic expert to determine whether the audio was edited, manipulated or synthesised.
He further wants the Disciplinary Committee to establish the identities of the speakers and determine whether a prima facie case of professional misconduct exists.
Shanghala says he is also pursuing separate complaints concerning Imalwa through the Judicial Service Commission and the police, while pointing to a pending High Court review under case number HC-MD-CIV-MOT-REV-2025/00566 concerning the lawfulness of the investigation preceding his prosecution.
He stresses that the parallel proceedings address different issues and should not prevent the Law Society from investigating the professional conduct allegations.
The complaint does not ask the Law Society to remove Imalwa from office, which Shanghala acknowledges falls within the jurisdiction of the relevant constitutional authorities.
Instead, he wants both practitioners to account for the allegations and face a disciplinary hearing should the committee find sufficient grounds.
He maintains that he is not asking the Law Society to accept the recording as authentic without verification or to make findings against the two prosecutors without hearing their responses.
The allegations remain untested, and the authenticity of the recording has yet to be independently established.
