WINDHOEK – A woman who laid charges against her ex-husband was left disappointed in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court when Magistrate John Sindano granted a Rule 174 application made by his lawyer Milton Engelbrecht.
Engelbrecht invoked the Rule 174 application in which the State closes its case when it cannot prove a prima facie case against any accused.
This came after the complainant in the matter Judelda Bowe testified in court. She said when she arrived home early on Sunday morning of February 24 this year from a night out she found her car’s tyres slashed, and the front and back windscreens plus one of the side windows broken.
She further said that she also saw a brick and beer bottle on the backseat of the car. Bowe further said that she went to the police station to lay a charge and upon her return with a police officer they found her ex-husband, Victor Bowe, with blood on his hands and he confessed he was the one who damaged the car.
Engelbrecht however immediately lodged an objection that that evidence was hearsay which was upheld. On a question from State Prosecutor, Seredine Jacobs, to Ms Bowe as to who she suspected to have damaged her car, she said that she suspected her ex, as he had been sending her threatening text messages all night, including one that said “jou kar se wiele is pap (your car’s tyres are flat)”.
Then it was the turn of defence counsel Engelbrecht who wasted no time in pinning her down. He quickly made mincemeat out of her version of events.
First he wanted to know how she knew that it was her ex-husband who damaged her car and she answered because of the threatening text messages. He said that it could’ve been that he was informing her that her car was damaged after other people did it, and she could not deny it. Engelbrecht, who stopped just short of accusing the woman herself of damaging the car, accused her of breaching a court order that ordered that she pay her ex-husband his share of the house, while he stays as a backyard resident in a flat. He also accused her of breaching a protection order she took out against her ex-husband by allowing him to stay in the house and by granting him conjugal rights after their divorce was finalised at the end of August 2012.
In his ruling the magistrate said the complainant made a poor witness whose answers were vague and mostly relied on suspicion. He then dismissed all charges against the accused.
By Roland Routh