Iuze Mukube
An additional request by the State for a postponement in the bribery case against former agriculture minister Mac-Albert Hengari faced strong opposition yesterday.
Mekumbu Tjiteere, representing Hengari, argued that the case against his client is turning into a persecution instead of prosecution.
He pointed out that there have been numerous requests from the State to postpone the matter while it awaits the decision from the prosecutor general.
Tjiteere added that he opposed the application for further remand for the reasons provided by the State. He argued that the Office of the Prosecutor General is an institution and does not deal with individuals.
This follows the indication or one of the reasons the State gave, stating that the prosecutor general’s decision was ready but only that it has not been signed yet.
“Liberty of citizens is not subject to individuals. The Prosecutor General’s Office is a constitutionally founded institution and did not anticipate that it will be centred around one person,” he stated.
He stated it was for that reason that he will not concede for a postponement.
Tjiteere added that his client has been prepared for the State to decide if it will prosecute him in the Regional Court or the High Court.
The prosecutor general’s decision does not always result in prosecution, it could concede that there is not enough evidence to prosecute him, he said.
“This is no longer a prosecution, it is a persecution,” he contested.
He stated the application was opposed and that the reason given by the State was not sufficient, adding that the State is running away from the fact that its case is weak and does not have sufficient evidence.
The lawyer of Hengari’s co-accused, Nafimane Halweendo shared similar sentiments. He told the court that the matter was before court for a final remand, and final means final, and the inquiry is a prejudice.
He stated his client, as opposed to the State, is prejudiced as he has been traveling back and forth between Namibia and Germany, only to face postponements. The second accused is employed as an artisan in Germany and must travel every month to appear in court. If the matter is not withdrawn, it is granted that the accused will have to make arrangements for that and his employment will not simply agree to such, he argued.
He stated his client was hijacked with the State’s request for a further two-week delay. He said the State will not suffer any prejudice, but his client will, pointing out that the charges against him do not guarantee direct imprisonment.
He added that just because it is the prosecution, it does not mean it should be given leeway.
Magistrate Immanuel Udjombala stated that he took note of both sides’ arguments and, in balancing both interests, ordered for a postponement to 10 March 2026.
The magistrate further ruled that there will be no further extension to be granted by the court and the date in question, 10 March, will be the final one. The two accused are out on bail.
Photo: Heather Erdmann