Iuze Mukube
The Supreme Court has upheld a contested decision by Prosecutor General Martha Imalwa to arraign British businessman Harvey Boulter on a charge of murder and other counts in connection with a fatal shooting that occurred on his farm, near Kamanjab, in 2021.
Boulter (55) faces charges in the High Court for murder, possession of a firearm without a licence, unlawful possession of ammunition and handling of a firearm whilst under the influence of liquor or a drug having a toxic effect.
He was arraigned on the charges in 2022, but decided to challenge the PG’s decision to prosecute him in 2023 via a review application, claiming that there was no direct evidence linking him to the murder.
He also sought to have the rest of the charges set aside, arguing that he was entitled to own the gun as a sole shareholder of the licensed company, and that there was no evidence that he was intoxicated when handling the firearm.
The review application was dismissed in the High Court on the basis that the decision to prosecute was based on an honest belief and reasonable evidence, hence, Boulter took his fight to the Supreme Court to appeal the said judgement.
In the apex court, Boulter based his argument on that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution and that the PG’s decision, to the contrary, was invalid and irrational.
Acting Judge of Appeal Theo Frank found that “in the above context, the PG is clearly entitled to initiate proceedings in this regard.”
Frank, with agreement from two other appeal judges, Dave Smuts and Rita Makarau, ruled that “there was a proper case to lay before the court.”
The judge added that the “decision by the PG is clearly not irrational but one where other reasonable prosecutors would have also pressed the charges as there is sufficient evidence to provide reasonable prospects of a conviction.”
On the other charges that Boulter sought to be set aside, Frank stated that there was a distinction between the rights and property of a company and those of a shareholder, even as a sole shareholder, like in this regard.
Therefore, the approach by Boulter that he is the beneficial owner based on that he is a sole shareholder was incorrect, simply for that a company having a licence to possess firearms for the purpose of trading therein does not allow shareholders to possess them for such purposes.
Frank stated that for the other charges, clear factual conflicts arise in the context, which can only be resolved through clear evidence.
It was on these premises that he dismissed the appeal.
The charges are in connection with an incident that occurred on the accused’s farm near Kamanjab, where an altercation between him and the deceased’s son, Pieter van Wyk, escalated, leading to Boulter removing his pistol, which subsequently discharged and ended up hitting the abdomen of the deceased, Gerhardus van Wyk, who intervened in the altercation.
The version of Boulter is that he was assaulted by the Van Wyks and only held the pistol in his hand as a deterrent, and that the gun went off accidentally during the scuffle, without his finger on the trigger.
He argues that the State failed to disclose who pulled the trigger, which led to the death of his farm manager, because it was not him who did so.
Boulter was represented by Sisa Namandje and Kadhila Amoomo and the State by Daniel Small.
The matter was postponed to 19 November 2025 for pre-trial in the High Court.