Iuze Mukube
Former fisheries, land reform and agriculture minister Mac-Albert Hengari will learn tomorrow whether he will be released from custody or if the State’s application for postponement will succeed.
Hengari (59) and his 30-year-old co-accused appeared in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court yesterday.
A peacefull protest demanding his release was also staged.
They each face a charge of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice.
The charge involves an accusation that on 26 April 2025, in the district of Windhoek, Hengari wrongfully and unlawfully attempted to defeat the course of justice by offering the 21-year-old complainant N$222 000 to withdraw the rape case she lodged against him.
The ruling, expected tomorrow, follows yesterday’s proceedings, where the State, represented by Advocate Filistas Shikerete-Vendura and assisted by Rowan van Wyk, requested further postponement of the matter.
Shikerete-Vendura stated additional time is needed to complete investigations and secure key statements from witnesses.
This is following the last postponement from 28 April 2025, which was requested because a few witness statements and reports from the forensic lab, which are being extracted from the devices, are still pending.
Hengari’s legal team, however, opposed the request, arguing that continued delays are prejudicial to their client and undermine the right to a fair trial.
Lawyer Patrick Kauta, who is representing Hengari, argued that it was uncontroversial, based on the police’s own version, that they were aware of a conspiracy but failed to arrest the conspirators at that time.
He added that regarding the charge of conspiracy, the judgement was based on the proposition itself, not on the amount of N$222 000, as it was irrelevant to establish a conspiracy.
Kauta further noted that the police did not obtain a warrant to arrest any of the accused.
Additionally, he stated that a sting operation is not something that an officer should proudly announce in an affidavit, as the word sting typically involves using deception tactics and a High Court ruling has established that police entrapment through deception is unlawful.
He contested that the officers had a wrong understanding of the law, questioning why they failed to make arrests at the time Hengari was making a settlement proposition to the complainant.
This, Kauta said, is because the completion of a transaction is not needed to establish a conspiracy, particularly when a proposed settlement had already been agreed upon the day before the transaction took place.
Kauta objected to the continued detention of the accused, asserting that the accused should be released, as there is no dispute regarding the State’s request for a postponement to allow for further investigation.
Kadhila Amoomo, who is representing the second accused (30), concurred with Kauta, adding that the State must give a proper explanation as to why the investigations remain incomplete, including the challenges they encountered in extracting the forensic lab results from a device.
Amoomo added that based on the affidavit dated 26 April 2025, the State knows who was present on the scene that day, so it is quite clear from whom the witness statement is going to come.
He was vehement the State is withholding information as to the reason why investigations are not complete.
Furthermore, the State’s postponement application lacks substance as to the reason why investigations are not complete, and that postponement must be properly justified and not for the mere asking of one.
He demanded the State fully explain why the witness statements and lab results have not yet been obtained and that a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused in custody and the interests of a thorough investigation.
Shikerete-Vendura responded that the matter has only been on the court roll for 30 days, and, therefore, it is premature to exercise discretion expecting the case to be finalised and trial-ready within such a short period.
She added that the right to a fair trial is equally guaranteed to the victim and the State and not solely to the accused.
Hence, the matter essentially boils down to the defence employing tactics and shortcuts before the matter is trial-ready.
She disputed the arrest without a warrant ground by the defence and cited section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which entails an arrest without a warrant under certain circumstances, adding that a sting operation is lawful as established by trite law, as entrapment is necessary to ensure justice is served.
She added that investigations are not yet finalised and submitted that a period of 30 days is not overstretching and makes sense that investigations are not finalised.
The defence responded that they will not make a bail application but that under section 168 of the CPA, in the absence of a proper application to remand the accused, the accused could be released without such an application.
Magistrate Monica Andjaba, the presiding officer, postponed the matter to tomorrow, 05 June 2025.