Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Section of law on buying stolen goods ‘unconstitutional’

Home Archived Section of law on buying stolen goods ‘unconstitutional’

WINDHOEK – The High Court has declared as unconstitutional a section through which people, who have bought stolen goods, without the knowledge that such goods are stolen, are charged with theft.

The law also required people to alternatively prove that they did not buy the stolen items knowingly. Ultimately, the law requires such persons to prove legal ownership of the items in their possession. High Court Judges Nate Ndauendapo and Naomi Shivute found this section of the law unconstitutional, since it goes against the constitutional fundamentals of the Namibian justice system and argued: “The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is clearly infringed.” The two judges found that it is up to the prosecution to prove to the court an individual’s guilt and that the court should be able to acquit such a person found in possession of stolen goods, even if the person’s explanation to the court smells fishy, as long as the explanation is reasonable enough to the court. “If the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal even though his explanation is improbable. A court is not entitled to convict, unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable, but that beyond reasonable doubt it is false,” read the judgment.

The ruling was handed down in the case of 61-year-old Joao Gomes, who lodged an application in the High Court after he was accused of theft in the Swakopmund Regional Court. Gomes was charged with theft for buying three welding machines from the person who stole the machines, and who was his co-accused in the case. The machines were found in Gomes’ possession. He was charged with theft, alternatively possession of stolen goods. Gomes pled not guilty to the charges, but the State proceeded with the charges of theft in terms of Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This section states: “If the evidence on a charge of theft does not prove the offence of theft, but the offence of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, such accused may be found guilty of the offence so proved.” Gomes specifically challenged Section 7, which when read with Section 264, categorically says a person found in possession of stolen goods, even if such goods were bought at a public sale, such a person should provide proof why they believed, when buying, that the items were not stolen and were properties of the person who was selling them. Failure to provide such proof would make the person guilty of theft.

Judge Ndauendapo said in a society where the majority of our population is illiterate and engage in informal trading as a way of making a living on a daily basis, the risk of innocent people being convicted and sent to prison is too high if the reverse onus in Section 7 is to be retained. The judges also ordered that the Prosecutor General, who was the only one to oppose the application pay the costs of the suit. Advocate Louis Botes appeared on behalf of Gomes.

Story by Roland Routh