Iuze Mukube
A sledgehammer effect slammed the accused in the Namcor corruption case in their bail request on Friday.
This followed the firm refusal by Magistrate Linus Samunzala to release the six applicants in the Namcor fraud case, on bail leaving them to continue their fight in the case from behind bars.
The applicants were former Namcor head Immanuel Mulunga, Jennifer Hamukwaya, Olivia Dunaiski, Peter Elindi, Malakia Elindi, and Leo Stefanus Nandago.
They face multiple charges including fraud, theft, alternatively theft by false pretenses, money laundering, conspiracies, and corruptly accepting gratification or giving gratification to an agent.
Additionally, they face a count of dealing, using, holding, receiving and concealing, as well as corruptly using an office or position for gratification. Magistrate Samunzala said from the evidence, it was apparent that the applicants, with the exception of Dunaiski, contradicted themselves in both their evidence in chief and during cross-examination.
In considering the likelihood of interference with investigations or state witnesses, Samunzala said the test with such regard is whether there is a real likelihood they will, not may interfere.
“It is apparent the investigating officer [Oberty Inambao] testified that the applicants are branches of the same tree, due to their relationship. Business entities are registered in different persons, and the money was transferred from one entity to the other.
On the issue of the seriousness and strength of the state case, Samunzala pointed out that while the accused contended the State’s case is “weak, pathetic, chaotic”, most, if not all conceded that the allegations of fraud are serious in nature.
It was not disputed that Enercon owes N$70 million to Namcor Trading, Erongo has a debt of about N$232 million and that Nandago had a 100% interest in Enercon at the time.
“A rhetoric question can be asked, what did Namcor Trading pay, N$53.2 million for, if they did not acquire the assets?” he questioned.
He said while the applicants relentlessly disputed the charges levelled against them, as the State said, they failed to prove they were good candidates for bail.
Hence, he ruled the applicants had failed to discharge onus of proof on a balance of probability that they are good candidates for bail.
The magistrate added that it is not in the public interest or interest of the administration of justice seeing as there is a remote possibility that they will interfere with state witness or police investigations if granted bail.
He then refused Mulunga, the Elindi brothers, Hamukwaya, Dunaiski, and Nandago bail and ordered that they remain in custody until the matter is conceded, finalised, and removed from the roll. The case was postponed to 20 November 2025 to allow for further police investigations.
Photo: Heather Erdmann