Iuze Mukube
Tension emerged during the cross-examination of Anti-Corruption Commission chief investigation officer Oberty Inambao yesterday.
The cross-examination was being conducted by defence lawyer Boris Isaacks in the ongoing Namcor-rot bail application.
He is representing the State-owned oil company’s ex-manager Cedric Willemse.
The lawyer began his examination by telling Inambao that he had been accused of being a “storyteller” in the past and hoped that he would not have to do the same in the bail application.
“I hear you,” stated Inambao in response to Isaacks, which, if he understood, seemed to spark friction between the two.
Isaacks then began with questions as to whether the funds involved in the entities’ agreement, Namcor and Enercon, were public.
The response by Inambao raised a sigh from Isaacks, as the officer responded that the parent company, Namcor Holding, receives a levy from the government and Namcor Trading got the funds from operating for the holding.
The following questions were to confirm Inambao’s educational and professional background as well as work experience.
However, they did not seem to sit well with Inambao, who told the defence that he saw no relevance.
“Inambao, I want you to relax. You are very aggressive towards me. I am only here to ask you questions. There is no need for you to invite me to do this and that, really,” said Isaacks.
Inambao responded: “You said I am wasting time, so I am waiting for the questions so that we can proceed”.
Isaacks then made propositions to Inambao, arguing that the seriousness of the offence itself has no relevance to the ultimate question of bail.
He argued that, by law, denying bail on that fact results in anticipatory punishment.
The second proposition was that there is a difference between public opinion and public interest of justice.
Isaacks said that when an accused is denied bail on the grounds that he will stand trial, it will not be in the interest of justice.
He added that the proper approach for interference with investigations is that, unless the State can show a real reason that the accused will – not merely may – interfere with investigations, interference should not be presumed.
On the final proposition, Isaacks stated that it is not reason enough for the State to keep an accused in custody on the basis that investigations are incomplete.
Inambao stated that many factors should be taken into consideration before granting or denying bail to an accused.
The matter continues in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court tomorrow.
Photo: Heather Erdmann