Staff reporter
Windhoek-based lawyer and former Acting High Court Judge, Kaijata Kangueehi, has said that President Hage Geingob’s name being mentioned in Maren de Klerk’s affidavit does not link the head of state to the ‘Fishrot’ scandal.
This comes after President Hage Geingob was named in lawyer Maren de Klerk’s affidavit, when he was referred to by James Hatuikulipi and former minister of justice Sacky Shanghala, as the “Boss” for whom certain payments were to be processed.
“The whole affidavit is riddled with a lot of hearsay evidence. The investigating authority failed to seek confirmatory affidavits, which renders this affidavit insignificant in law.” Kangueehi added, “Investigating authority had the duty to get confirmatory from James and or Sackey. To the political eye it is appealing, but to the legal mind it is problematic and a storm in a teacup.”
He further questioned de Klerk’s motives, stating that he offers nothing tangible but to save his own skin. “His intention is to invoke the protection of section 204 (4) and 52 of ACC Act. This testimony will not stand in court,” said he arguing further that the President’s name was mentioned in the affidavit to bring attention.
“He is referred to as the boss which could be anyone ,but even where he is mentioned, it is stated Sacky Shangala asked de Klerk to form a closed corporation which was meant for the President, but how do you know that it even reached him?”
“N$2 million was to be sent to Geingob through a closed corporation but has anyone gone to the registry to check if the President is actually linked to that Cc?”
Meanwhile head of the Anti-corruption Commission (ACC), Paulus Noa, has stated that it would be up to the Prosecutor General, Martha Imalwa, to decide whom to charge and whom not, depending on the weight of evidence. He, however, added that the names of those mentioned in de Klerk’s statement are not necessarily suspects.
“Sometimes, someone’s name is mentioned in another person’s statement but that doesn’t necessarily make that person a suspect. Not every person who has been mentioned becomes a suspect in this matter. You don’t just charge because a person has been mentioned.”
This comes as the PG in December decided to officially charge the Fishrot accused, along with de Klerk, Phillipus Mwapopi and Otneel Shuudifonya.
The ACC boss stated that the three charged in December are not comparable to those mentioned in de Klerk’s affidavit, as they already had implicating evidence against them. However Noa said the PG could still charge them.
“The evidence that caused them to be charged is implicating them specifically on the information we had. The ones mentioned in de Klerk’s statement, if the PG wants to charge any one of them, it is up to the PG. Whether that is enough to charge someone, that will depend on the prosecuting authority.”
“It’s not us who decides to charge someone and when you do charge you must have sufficient evidence.”
The President has denied the allegations linking him to Fishrot, stating he will further address the matter when the courts allow.
“The case concerned has now reached a sensitive stage as the Prosecutor General has taken a decision, and the case will soon proceed to trial. The President will not seek to jeopardize or influence the administration of justice through public statements induced by the media,” a statement by Presidential Press Secretary Dr Alfredo Hengari read.
