State wants ex-treason accused claims haltedThe former treason accused are suing the Namibian government for a total of N$302 million. Defence hits back at prosecutor-general The State has asked the High Court to stop civil claims lodged by 20 acquitted former treason accused pending the finalisation of their effort to appeal against the acquittal. The acquitted former treason accused earlier instituted damage claims on the basis of malicious prosecution.
State-instructed lawyer Sisa Namandje submitted that there is compelling, justifiable and factual basis for the former treason accused claims to be stopped pending the finalisation of the appeal commenced by the prosecutor-general.
The other applicants are the Minister of Safety and Security and Government of Republic of Namibia and are being sued for a total of N$302 million.
“We need the court to halt the civil claim proceedings now and not wait until the acquittal is set aside,” Namandje said.
He emphasised that the prosecutor-general was appealing because they are convinced that the High Court erred.
The ruling in the State’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, against the acquittal of the 20 former treason accused, is expected to be delivered on 8 March 2017.
Namandje, however, argued that for good legal and policy considerations, such claims should be halted until all appellate processes that may have been initiated by the prosecutor-general have been finalised.
He told the High Court on Monday that the application was triggered by the respondents’ unyielding stance that until and unless the prosecutor-general obtains leave to appeal, there are no criminal proceedings against the respondents.
“The mere filling of an application for leave to appeal against the respondents’ acquittal reinstates in itself criminal proceedings that have been terminated against them until certainty has been achieved either in respect of the application for leave to appeal itself or in the consequent appeal,” he argued.
Profysen Muluti, appearing for some of ten respondents argued that the court has discretion to suspend civil criminal proceedings where there are pending criminal proceedings in respect of the same issues. He said in exercising its discretion, the court must among others, have regard for the extent to which a persons’ right to a fair trial might be implicated if their civil proceedings are allowed to proceed prior to the commencement of the criminal proceedings.
“The court must satisfy itself that there is danger that the accused might be prejudiced in the conduct of his defence in the criminal matter if the civil case is allowed to proceed before the finalisation of the criminal matter,” Muluti argued.
Muluti further accused the prosecutor-general of abuse.
“There is a clear arrogance, disregard of the court rules and extra dereliction by PG in prosecuting this application to stay and leave to appeal.”
FRED GOEIEMAN