Andre Majiedt, a former police officer serving jail time for robbery, wants his sentence and conviction set aside by the High Court, stating the missing parts of the court record are prejudicial to his appeal.

Through his lawyer Tuna Nhinda, Majiedt (54) argued yesterday that the missing parts of his testimony and that of the main witness are crucial for the court to properly adjudicate his appeal. 

“It so happens that not much can be made out of what transpired with the missing testimonies and so this will prejudice the appellant. There has been a failure of justice,” argued Nhinda. 

Thus, Nhinda asked the court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by Windhoek Regional Court. 

Majiedt was convicted on a charge of robbery with aggravating circumstances in November 2018. The court sentenced Majiedt to 15 years imprisonment, of which five years were suspended for five years on the condition that he is not convicted of robbery or an offence of which violence is an element, committed during the period of suspension.  The court also declared him unfit to possess a firearm for five years.

According to witnesses who testified during his trial, Majiedt robbed three people at gunpoint in Khomasdal after they had bought stock valued at N$30 821 for a bar. 

He allegedly pointed a gun at the driver (the driver is known to him) of a bakkie that was carrying the stock and ordered him to jump out of the car. 

He then drove off with the car and the goods. He was arrested that same day after he drove the car and its load to his girlfriend’s home.

On the merits of the appeal, Nhinda argued that the lower court erred in its judgment when it convicted Majiedt without the State proving that there was intent to commit the crime. 

“The actions of the appellant are not of someone who had the intention of committing a robbery. If he had the intention, why would he request people to call the police? In addition, all the goods were found in the vehicle,” said Nhinda. 

He said the court should have looked at the circumstances of what transpired before Majiedt “took” the car. 

Majiedt was allegedly being robbed and had just been injected with something that made him feel dizzy when he saw a car with a familiar person.

He demanded the car so he could escape from the robbery. He also requested the driver to call the police. Thus, he never intended to steal the vehicle or the goods that were loaded in it.   

Arguing for the State, prosecutor Karin Esterhuizen admitted that some parts of Majiedt and main witness testimony are missing. However, those parts are not crucial which would deter the court from considering and dismissing the appeal application. 

She argued that the version Majiedt presented that he was unaware of what was happening because of the injection is false. 

Esterhuizen said Majiedt gave a detailed account of what transpired during his testimony but failed to explain what led to him being injected. 

“The appellant (Majiedt) was at all material times perfectly aware of his actions, what he was doing, and his defence that he was confused, chased by people, and injected is a fabrication,” explained Esterhuizen.

Esterhuizen said the sentence imposed on Majiedt is reasonable and the court should dismiss his appeal application. 

Appeal judges Herman January and Dinah Usiku will deliver judgment on 6 May. Majiedt was remanded in custody. 

- mamakali@nepc.com.na