State Advocate Ed Marondedze on Wednesday argued that the additional documents requested by former attorney general and justice minister Sacky Shanghala and two of his Fishrot co-accused, James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo, will not assist them in preparing for their defence.
In fact, Marondedze said, it is prohibited for the accused to have such documents disclosed to them. He said it is prohibited by law for communication between investigating authorities to be provided to accused persons. He further said the requests by Shanghala and co are misplaced and based on a misunderstanding of the law.
The long and short of it, Marondedze said, is that the accused are not entitled to the documents. He further said Shanghala did not cite any relevant authority in this jurisdiction to supplement his case. All the evidence the State will rely on to prove their case was disclosed to the accused. In any event, he said, the three accused want the State to help them in their defence, which is not the duty of the State.
He told the judge that the application by Shanghala and his cronies is dilatory in nature and only meant to further delay the start of the trial. There is no merit in the application at all, Marondedze claimed. He further said that all the evidence the State will rely on during the trial was already disclosed to all the accused and the only ones that is crying foul is the applicants.
Marondedze was arguing in the opposition to the application of Shanghala and co to be furnished with additional discovery on top of what was already discovered to them.
Shanghala in contrast, said that the application would not have been necessary had the State discovered the documents when asked for them. They are the ones that is delaying the matter with their conduct of playing games, Shanghala said. He further claimed that documents found at his residence, which will show why money flowed into bank accounts of people and what they did with it, just disappeared.
These documents would have shown there was no theft, no fraud and this ‘nonsense’ case would have done with, Shanghala stressed. He said this shows how the Anti-Corruption Commission are weaponised against citizens to suit the State’s agenda. According to Shanghala, the State’s attitude of playing games with their piecemeal discovery is jeopardising their readiness to prepare a proper defence against the “baseless and illegal charges” they face.
The documents he requested are needed to assist them to prepare and the failure to provide such will not be in the interest of justice and fair trial as guaranteed in the supreme law of Namibia, the Constitution, Shanghala stated categorically.
Shanghala and co wants Judge Marilize du Plessis to order the State to provide them with bilateral agreements between Namibia, Iceland, Norway and the United Arab Emirates in terms of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act to them, and to disclose to them responses obtained from those countries because of mutual legal assistance requests made by Namibia.
They further want the court to order the State to provide them with information on communication between the Anti-Corruption Commission and investigators of their case. In addition, they are asking for an order directing the State to furnish them with information on meetings held by an integrated investigating taskforce that carried out an investigation in their matter, including the minutes of those meetings.
Judge Du Plessis indicated that she will deliver her ruling on 8 September at 10h00.
Photo: Heather Erdmann