Allexer Namundjembo
Terrorism accused Jona Hangula has asked the High Court to reject the State’s application to hear the evidence of an alleged United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent behind closed doors, arguing that the proceedings should remain open to the public to safeguard his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Court documents seen by the Windhoek Observer show that Hangula has filed a notice of motion and answering affidavit opposing the prosecution’s in camera application, which is set to be heard on 22 July 2026 as an interlocutory matter in the High Court.
Hangula is charged in what he describes as Namibia’s first prosecution under the Prevention and Combating of Terrorist and Proliferation Activities Act since independence.
In his application, Hangula asks the court to dismiss the State’s request for closed proceedings and order that the alleged FBI agent testify in open court.
He further proposes that the witness be allowed to testify remotely via Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or a similar platform without appearing on video.
Hangula also seeks an order allowing his family members, wife, friends, church members, and his entire legal team, and not only his legal counsel, to attend the proceedings during the FBI agent’s testimony.
In his answering affidavit, Hangula argues that he has never received a witness statement from the alleged FBI agent.
“I have not been disclosed any witness statements from an alleged FBI Special Agent. I’m therefore reasonably entitled to conclude that there is no such witness,” he states.
He argues that calling a witness whose statement has not been disclosed would undermine his right to prepare his defence.
“If such were to happen, I will not receive a fair trial because I would be poorly prepared to engage that particular witness.”
Hangula further argues that criminal proceedings in Namibia are presumed to be public under Article 12 of the Constitution and that any departure from that principle must be properly justified.
“Criminal proceedings in Namibia are presumptively public and must be conducted in open court,” he states, adding that the burden rests on the State to prove why the proceedings should be closed.
He contends that the novelty of the prosecution is itself a reason for greater transparency.
“It is precisely because the case is unprecedented that the Namibian public, the criminal justice system, the judiciary, the legal profession, and the international community, have a legitimate interest in observing how the State lays out its case against Namibia’s first terrorist accused in open court.”
According to Hangula, public confidence in the justice system would be strengthened through openness rather than secrecy.
He also argues that Namibia’s reporting obligations to the United Nations do not justify excluding the public from court proceedings.
“The Prosecutor-General’s obligation, if any, to report the outcome of these proceedings to committees of the United Nations Security Council… has no logical or legal bearing on whether evidence should be withheld from the Namibian public and press.”
Hangula says he has no objection to protecting the FBI agent’s identity but believes that can be achieved without closing the courtroom.
“I am not even interested in seeing the face of the alleged FBI Special Agent. I concede that the identity of the FBI Special Agent should be shielded from the public.”
He adds, however, that the witness’s evidence should still be heard publicly.
“I deny and dispute that the voice of the alleged FBI Special Agent should be shielded from the public.”
The accused proposes several alternatives to an in camera hearing, including testimony via an encrypted live video link from the United States, voice and image distortion technology, evidence taken on commission under the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, or a pre-recorded deposition, provided his legal team is afforded a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
He further argues that the State cannot rely on the Witness Protection Act because there is no evidence that the alleged FBI agent has formally been admitted to Namibia’s witness protection programme.
According to Hangula, the statutory requirements for admitting a foreign witness into the programme, including a formal request by a foreign authority and a written protection agreement, have not been disclosed.
He therefore argues that the application should instead be assessed solely under the Criminal Procedure Act and constitutional principles governing open justice.
Hangula’s application is supported by a confirmatory affidavit from his legal practitioner, Joas Neemwatya, who confirms the contents of the accused’s affidavit insofar as they relate to him.
The High Court is expected to determine on 22 July whether the alleged FBI agent’s evidence will be heard in open court or behind closed doors before the criminal trial proceeds. No ruling has yet been made on the State’s application.
