Ombudsman testifies in treason lawsuit The Ombudsman Advocate John Walters, who was the acting prosecutor-general (PG) during the Caprivi rebel attack on 2 August 1999 and at the start of the treason trial in Grootfontein in 2003, testified regarding the duties of the prosecution and his role as the PG in the prosecution of the accused, several of whom who were acquitted, are now suing the government.Based on his experience Walters stated as an afterthought after the conclusion of the major part of the treason trial, that thorough investigation should have been conducted at first, linking the suspects to the crime.
“Thereafter the suspects should have been arrested,” Walters emphasised during cross-examination by Advocate Andrew Corbett who is acting on behalf of one of the plaintiffs, Richwell Kulisesa Mahupelo.
Mahupelo is claiming damages of roughly N$15.3 million for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. The defendants in the matter are the safety and security minister, the prosecutor-general and the Government of the Republic of Namibia.
According to him he was arrested on March 16, 2000, near Katima Mulilo. He was allegedly driving with Aggrey Mwamba and Bennett Matuso and when the car was searched, the police found an AK-47 assault rifle which led to their immediate arrest on suspicion of being part of the ‘Caprivi Rebellion’ that attempted to secede the then Caprivi.
The plaintiff’s lawsuit is one of the nine claims lodged by former accused in the trial who were found not guilty in February 2013.
They were acquitted on 275 charges of murder, sedition, and treason, illegal possession of fire-arms and ammunition and attempted murder relating to the 2 August attacks.
Advocate Walters, on the issue of alleged confessions made by the plaintiff stated that the prosecution cannot accept such a confession when is it glaringly clear the charged persons were coerced. He however cautioned that one cannot make, on face value of such a statement, a decision regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of such evidence.
He added that the prosecution has the duty to clarify the statements of witnesses to determine the evidential value thereof.
“If there are material differences or contradictions they must decline to prosecute and with specific references return the docket to the police’s investigating officer,” he explained.
The halting of the prosecution of a case can only be done on the decision of the prosecutor-general.
He further informed the court that the prosecution, based on their assessment of the evidence, can call the investigating officer to and that based on the evidence and request of the prosecution, the presiding officer can then withdrew a case.
“The prosecutor has to be active in handling the docket in order to be able to determine whether he can continue with prosecution or not,” Walters emphasised.
He further stressed that all the prosecutors should be aware of the constitutional obligation of the just nature and fairness of a trial.
Walters admitted that it is very difficult to prevent arbitrary arrest but added that continued detention without lawful reasons is prohibited by the Constitution and the courts.
According to him the overriding principle in prosecution is not about winning a case but to ensure that justice is done.
FRED GOEIEMAN