Iuze Mukube
The leave to appeal application of former justice minister Sacky Shanghala and two of his co-accused was rejected yesterday.
They sought for intervention from the Supreme Court on a High Court judgement against their request for additional documents pertaining to communications between the Anti-Corruption Commission and investigators in their case.
The judgement was read on record by Acting Judge Marilize Du Plessis in September.
Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo wanted the court to order the State to provide them with bilateral agreements between Namibia, Iceland, Norway and the United Arab Emirates in terms of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act to them.
In addition, they wanted disclosure of responses obtained from those countries.
They further asked for an order directing the State to furnish them with information on meetings held by an integrated investigating taskforce.
The taskforce carried out an investigation in Fishrot matter.The accused argued that the judge erred in law in concluding that they were provided the full docket when, in fact, they were not.
They said they were being prejudiced, as they wanted the information to assist in their defence. The State, represented by Ed Marondedze and assisted by Cliff Litubezi, opposed their request, arguing that such information will not assist them in preparing for their defence.
He added that they were not entitled to the documents.
The prosecutor at the time also noted that the applicants’ grounds of appeal were “vague and embarrassing, with no explanation given as to what they mean by the ‘full disclosure of the docket’.”
In delivering the ruling yesterday, Du Plessis maintained that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify the granting to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
She noted that Shanghala and his co-applicants did not specify the grounds upon which they desired for relief.
Du Plessis emphasised that leave to appeal is not automatically granted, but must be based on strong, specific grounds showing that another court might arrive at a different conclusion.
She stated that grounds of appeal serve to inform the magistrate in clear and specific terms which part of his or her judgement is being appealed against.
She added that the grounds of appeal also “crystallises the disputes and determines the parameters within which the Court of Appeal will have to decide the case”.
Du Plessis stated that the applicants’ grounds of appeal fall far short of this requirement hence their application was struck from the roll.
The judge ordered the State to compile a pre-trial memorandum, which must be disclosed to each accused before 4 November 2025.
The accused must respond to the memorandum before 18 November 2025. Shanghala and his co-accused are facing charges linked to the corruption and fraud scandal involving Namibia’s fishing quotas.
Du Plessis postponed the matter to 25 November 2025 for a pre-trial conference.