The legal battle over Namibia’s N$314 million diamond heist has entered a new phase, with Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) and security company G4S Secure Solutions Namibia locked in a dispute over access to evidence that could influence the outcome of the case.
The civil claim, in which Namdia is seeking damages from G4S over alleged negligence, has stalled after the two parties disagreed over the disclosure of documents and records that G4S says are necessary for its defence.
According to a joint status report filed on 27 July 2026, the matter was postponed for the court to determine the further conduct of the case after it emerged that Namdia had not disclosed certain evidence it intends to rely on.
Namdia is suing G4S for N$314 million, representing the value of 446 parcels of diamonds stolen during an armed robbery at the company’s premises on 18 January 2025.
The diamond company alleges that G4S breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide adequate security services and by failing to prevent the theft despite having security personnel present at the premises at the time of the incident.
G4S is seeking access to several documents, including Namdia’s security plan and standard operating procedures applicable on the day of the robbery, disciplinary records relating to the incident, CCTV footage, audio recordings and alarm activation records.
The security company is also requesting diamond acquisition, identification and valuation records relating to the stolen diamonds.
Namdia has indicated that it is in possession of some of the requested information but has withheld certain documents due to confidentiality concerns.
The diamond company has also stated that it does not have the CCTV footage requested by G4S, explaining that the electricity supply to the premises had been disconnected before the robbery occurred.
Legal advisor George Matengu Lifasi said evidence disclosure is a fundamental part of ensuring fairness in civil litigation because both parties must have an opportunity to test the claims and defences presented before court.
“In a civil claim of this nature, the party bringing the case carries the responsibility of proving its allegations. Evidence disclosure is therefore a critical part of ensuring fairness because the opposing party must have an opportunity to test the claims being made against it,” Lifasi said.
He said where a party intends to rely on certain documents, records or other material evidence, withholding such information could become a procedural concern because both sides require access to relevant information to properly prepare their cases.
“The court will ultimately have to balance issues of confidentiality against the principle of transparency in litigation. Confidentiality alone does not automatically mean evidence cannot be disclosed, the court may consider whether protective measures can be put in place while still allowing a fair trial,” he said.
Lifasi added that the outcome of the disclosure dispute could shape the direction of the case, as the strength of Namdia’s claim and G4S’s defence would depend heavily on the evidence placed before court.
The dispute follows the January 2025 robbery at Namdia’s premises, which resulted in the theft of diamonds valued at about N$314 million.
The incident also resulted in the deaths of Namdia senior protection officer Francois Eiseb, who allegedly responded to the scene while off duty and Max Endjala, who was reportedly linked to the robbery and died after police confronted suspects.
Nine suspects have since been arrested in connection with the criminal investigation, including former Namdia protection officers Joel Angula and Charles Rhoman, G4S security guard Samuel Shipanga and other individuals allegedly linked to the stolen diamonds.
Two additional suspects, Andreas Akwaake and Immanuel Ipinge, were arrested at the Noordoewer border post after allegedly being found in possession of suspected proceeds of crime amounting to more than N$700 000.
Namdia and G4S had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The matter now returns to court with the disclosure dispute set to determine the next stage of the N$314 million civil claim.
