Iuze Mukube
A bail appeal hearing of six individuals accused of multiple charges in connection with allegedly defrauding the State-owned enterprise, Namcor, of an amount exceeding N$400 million was postponed yesterday in the Windhoek High Court.
This is following an observation by judges Philanda Christiaan and Eileen Rakow that most of the accused’s legal representatives and the State did not file the required legal documents procedurally or within the prescribed time.
Christiaan expressed that the matter could not proceed without addressing and clarifying those procedural issues as noted.
She then ordered the matter to be postponed for that reason and to give time for the lawyers to procedurally file their notice of motion and heads of argument.
They were given five days from yesterday to file the said documents and for the State to file its reply on or before 27 January 2026.
She postponed the matter to 12 and 13 February 2026.
The accused include former Namcor MD Immanuel Mulunga, brothers Peter and Malakia Elindi, Jeniffer Hamukwaya, Olivia Dunaiski and Leo Stefanus Nandago.
They are appealing against the denial of bail by Magistrate Linus Samunzala of the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court on 26 September last year.
Samunzala had denied them bail on grounds that they contradicted themselves during cross-examination and in their evidence in chief.
He also stated they were flight risks and would likely interfere with ongoing investigations.
The appellants have approached the High Court seeking a redirection on Samunzala’s decision to refuse their bail application, as noted in the Elindi’s notice of motion.
They are appealing for the order to be set aside and to be given bail in the amount of N$50 000 each.
In the notice, the brothers also 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 would interfere with investigations.
They argue the magistrate had no evidence that they were a flight risk or that they would interfere with investigations yet still denied them bail.
It is maintained 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 unquestioningly, the evidence of the investigating officer but pointed out that they contradicted themselves during cross-examinations and in their evidence in chief.
“The judgement delivered by the learnt magistrate is replete with serious errors and misdirection and reveals a complete failure of a bail inquiry,” reads the notice.
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.
It is further stated that the magistrate failed to indicate the reason why the concessions and contradictions made by the investigation officer, Oberty Inambao, were “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 the two gave gratification (bribes) to any of Namcor’s employees, read the notice.
The accused all face multiple charges, including fraud, corruption, theft by false pretence and conspiracy in contravention of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and the Anti-Corruption Act.
