The allegations surrounding a voice recording purportedly involving Deputy Prosecutor General Edmund Marondedze are serious enough to warrant more than public speculation and social-media commentary. They demand a careful, credible and impartial examination of what happened, how the recording came into existence, who circulated it and whether any of the statements attributed to the senior prosecutor are authentic.
At the same time, allegations must remain allegations until they are properly established. The recording, by itself, should not become a substitute for evidence, nor should the public rush to conclusions about the conduct or motives of individuals mentioned in it.
That balance is particularly important because the controversy touches the very institutions upon which the rule of law depends: the Office of the Prosecutor General, the judiciary and the administration of justice.
According to the allegations reported by the Windhoek Observer, a voice note was circulated in a WhatsApp group for prosecutors on October 5 before being deleted. The speaker is purportedly Marondedze, and the recording allegedly contains comments about the prosecution of Fishrot accused persons, bail applications, judges and internal conversations involving Prosecutor General Martha Imalwa.
Marondedze has categorically denied making the recording or circulating it. He has questioned its authenticity and pointed to the possibility of technological manipulation. That denial is important and must be given due weight.
But precisely because the allegations are so consequential, the appropriate response cannot simply be to accept either version without investigation.
The first question is therefore one of authenticity. Modern technology makes it increasingly possible to manipulate or fabricate audio. Any serious investigation should establish whether the recording is genuine, whether it has been edited, when and where it was created, and whether the voice can reliably be attributed to Marondedze.
The second question concerns its circulation. If the recording was indeed posted to a prosecutors’ WhatsApp group from an account belonging to a senior prosecutor, that fact should be independently established. Digital evidence can provide answers where competing recollections cannot.
The third and perhaps most important question concerns the substance of the alleged remarks.
The justice system depends not only on impartiality, but on the perception of impartiality. Prosecutors are expected to exercise considerable power in deciding whom to prosecute, what charges to pursue and how cases should proceed. Judges, similarly, must be able to exercise their constitutional responsibilities without fear of political, racial or institutional pressure.
That is why alleged comments about individual judges, including questions about their competence, appointments or political connections, are deeply troubling if authentic.
The same applies to the alleged remarks concerning Fishrot accused persons. It is entirely legitimate for prosecutors to distinguish between the merits of a prosecution and the question of whether an accused person should remain in custody pending trial. Bail is not acquittal, and prosecution is not conviction.
Indeed, a prosecutor can properly believe that an accused should face trial while also believing that continued detention is unjustified. There is nothing inherently contradictory about that position.
However, the alleged suggestion that the broader system is stacked against accused persons, or that particular judges command greater respect because they are white and supposedly speak with one voice, would raise far more serious questions if authentically attributed to a senior prosecutorial official.
Such comments would inevitably fuel perceptions of racial bias within institutions that are constitutionally required to treat people equally before the law.
Namibia cannot afford a justice system in which citizens believe that race, political connections or personal relationships determine how cases are handled. Nor can it afford the opposite: a system in which unverified accusations against judicial officers or prosecutors are circulated as established fact.
The allegations concerning Acting High Court Judge Gladice Pickering illustrate this dilemma. Claims about her qualifications, career advancement or alleged political connections require evidence. So too does any alleged relationship between her and Anti-Corruption Commission director Bryan Eiseb, and any suggestion that such a relationship influenced an appointment.
These are not matters that should be settled through insinuation.
The Fishrot proceedings make the situation even more sensitive. The case has already attracted extraordinary public attention because of the scale of the allegations and the senior political figures implicated. It is therefore essential that every institution involved in the case be seen to operate above personal interests and political considerations.
The Office of the Prosecutor General should consequently regard this controversy not merely as an unfortunate communications incident, but as a matter requiring institutional clarity.
If the recording is fake, that should be established and publicly explained as far as legally possible. If it is authentic, the appropriate authorities should determine whether the statements constitute a breach of professional obligations, confidentiality or ethical standards.
Equally, if confidential discussions between senior justice officials were improperly disclosed, that matter deserves investigation regardless of who ultimately made the recording.
The judiciary has declined to comment, while the Prosecutor General was reportedly unavailable for comment. That restraint is understandable. Ongoing legal proceedings should not be conducted through the media.
But institutional silence cannot be allowed to create a vacuum in which speculation becomes accepted as truth.
Namibia has spent decades building institutions designed to replace arbitrary power with constitutional government. The credibility of those institutions is one of the country’s most valuable assets.
That credibility must be protected by transparency, due process and restraint.
The Deputy Prosecutor General is entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to any allegation of wrongdoing. The judges and other officials mentioned in the recording are equally entitled to protection against unsubstantiated accusations.
But the public is also entitled to confidence that allegations capable of undermining the administration of justice will be examined properly.
The lesson from this controversy should therefore not be that senior officials must never be scrutinised. It should be the opposite.
Those who exercise public power must expect scrutiny, particularly when their conduct potentially affects confidence in the justice system.
Justice must not only be done. It must be demonstrably independent, impartial and credible.
That is a standard Namibia’s courts, prosecutors and public officials should all be able to meet.
