State Advocate Anna Amukugo on Thursday asked Windhoek High Court Judge Claudia Claasen to find a 24-year-old Lüderitz resident guilty of the murder of his biological brother.
Brenton Hendricks allegedly stabbed his elder brother Joslin Sagaria Hendricks at least seven times on 25 September 2022 at the Spokiesdorp location in Lüderitz.
He pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defence.
During his testimony in his own defence, he said he stabbed his brother to ward him off while the deceased was busy strangling him.
Amukugo, however, told the judge that the claim of self-defence holds no water, as the accused should have foreseen that stabbing the deceased multiple times could have resulted in death.
“The accused ought to reasonably have foreseen that he was using more force than necessary by stabbing the deceased a number of times,” she told the judge.
She added: “He ought reasonably to have foreseen that the possibility of death may occur as indeed happened, and it cannot be argued and said that the accused person did not have the intention to kill the deceased or even injure him”.
She said the stabbing was the result of the accused being fed up with the actions of the deceased always arguing with people at home.
The accused wanting to put an end to it, resulted in him killing his own brother, it is alleged.
Amukugo said evidence showed that the accused armed himself with a knife before confronting the deceased.
She said he acted with the necessary intent when he used the same knife to stab his brother in the back, inflicting the deep wounds that killed him.
She added that the accused’s actions cover the elements of the offence of murder.
Amukugo submitted that the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the court should find Hendricks guilty.
Joseph Andreas, who acted on behalf of Hendricks on instructions of Legal Aid, asked the court to acquit his client based on self-defence.
He told the judge that from the evidence presented, the deceased was the aggressor, and the accused was only defending himself.
Andreas said an accused’s claim to the benefit of doubt must not be derived from speculation.
He said it must rest upon a reasonable and solid foundation created either by positive evidence, or gathered from reasonable inferences which are not in conflict with, or outweighed by, the proven facts of the case.
The proven facts are that the deceased first attacked the accused and continued assaulting him with clenched fists all over his body.
Another fact is that the deceased, did not stop the attack, even after he was stabbed.
In addition, the deceased placed both hands on the accused’s neck, and started strangling him until the accused could not breathe.
Andreas reasoned that the accused had no option but to continue stabbing the deceased until he let go and ran to the kitchen.
He added that evidence proved that the accused did not pursue the deceased after he ran away.
In addition, Andreas said it is important to note that it was a mobile scene.
Therefore, the accused cannot be faulted for the number of stab wounds he inflicted on the deceased because the deceased was at all material times on top of the accused when he was assaulting him.
Another fact Andreas wanted to be taken into consideration was that the accused did not take the knife to stab the deceased, but he had it on him because he used it to prepare some food.
Andreas told the judge that it is a case of self-defence, imploring the judge to find it as such.
Judge Claasen reserved her judgement for 6 June.
Hendricks is free on bail.