Iuze Mukube
Brothers Peter and Malakia Elindi have approached the High Court, seeking a redirection on the magistrate’s decision to refuse their bail application.
The two were denied bail by Magistrate Linus Samunzala in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court on 26 September 2025.
They are now appealing in the High Court for the order by Samunzala to be set aside and be given bail in the amount of N$50 000, each.
In the notice, the brothers argue that the judgement by the magistrate was filled with serious errors and misdirection, particularly where it was concluded that they were a flight risk and will interfere with investigations.
They stated that Samunzala had no evidence they were a flight risk or will interfere with investigations yet still denied them bail.
The Elindis maintain that the magistrate failed to specify the material concessions they allegedly made on record.
They added that Samunzala was quick in embracing, almost blindly and unquestionably the evidence of the investigating officer but pointed out that the appellant contradicted themselves during cross-examinations and in their evidence in chief.
“The judgment delivered by the learned Magistrate is replete with serious errors, misdirections and reveals a complete failure of a bail inquiry,” read the notice.
They stated the magistrate disregarded and mischaracterized various issues, by ignoring the issues the true facts and legal issues presented by the appellants.
They added that the ruling failed to assess disputed issues properly, including the amount involved, the strength of the state’s case, and public interest concerns.
In addition, there was an unfair assessment of factual and legal issues which breached the appellants right to have access to court and their matter to be adjudicated fairly and objectively.
They also challenge the finding that their evidence was contradictory, arguing the court unfairly dismissed their testimony while favoring that of the investigating officer, even though he conceded the accused were unlikely to abscond or interfere.
It is further stated that the magistrate failed to indicate as to the reason why the concessions and contradictions made by the investigation officer, Oberty Inambao, was “not given negative prominence” as he did with the testimony of the accused.
In addition, the approach by the magistrate was hostile with branding the evidence of the appellant as “blatant lies”.
Samunzala failed to determine whether or not the two gave gratification (bribes) to any of Namcor’s employees, read the notice.
The two face multiple charges including fraud and corruption relating to allegedly defrauding Namcor of an amount exceeding N$400 million.
Photo: Heather Erdmann