State seeks new Teek prosecution

State seeks new Teek prosecutionBasis of appeal is that South African judge erred After a decade of freedom, Pio Teek may have to face new charges of the indecent assault and/or rape of two minor girls. FRED GOEIEMAN



Ten years ago, South African judge Ronnie Bosielo acquitted former Namibian High Court judge Pio Teek on charges of rape. The State yesterday lodged an appeal against that acquittal, saying Bosielo had either misdirected himself or erred in law when he discharged Teek.

In 2006, Bosielo had found Teek not guilty on all charges, which ranged from rape, attempted rape and kidnapping to supplying liquor to minors early in 2005.

The State wants to appeal against his discharge and acquittal on two counts of abduction, alternatively kidnapping, and two counts of rape read in conjunction of Combating of Rape Act, alternatively indecent assault.

Teek was accused of committing or attempting sexual acts with two girls under the age of 16.

He was accused of picking up the girls, aged nine and ten, in the vicinity of the Single Quarters in Katutura on 28 January 2005.

The South African judge had noted that the evidence of the two complainants had been conflicting, contradicting and that generally the quality of the evidence was poor.

“This is a classic case of evidence of poor quality that any credible court cannot convict on. The older complainant is a pathological liar,” Bosielo said at the time.

He said it was clear that the two complainants were neglected and naughty and came from seriously dysfunctional families with poor guidance.

State Advocate Innocencia Nyoni argued yesterday that the judge misdirected himself and/or erred in law and fact by acquitting and discharging Teek on the available evidence. Alternatively, she said, the judge erred when he found that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable man acting carefully may convict the accused of the offences charged.

She further submitted that Bosielo had misdirected himself and/or erred when he disregarded facts that were common cause and by finding in effect that the State had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against an accused before it could require the court to place an accused on his defence.

Nyoni stated that Bosielo erred or misdirected himself when he found that there was no basis to say that there was a complaint of deprivation of parental control in the minor girls, and that the two mothers themselves did not regard that as a deprivation of control and custody of their children.

“This was withstanding the fact that both mothers went to the police station in the middle of night to report missing their children and even provided the police with photos of the children,” Nyoni stated in her written heads of arguments.

Teek, in responding to the State’s application for leave to appeal, yesterday maintained that the presiding judge had not misdirected himself or erred, but based his judgment on the evidence of the State witnesses.

After the State alleged that the former judge opted not to give evidence after the closure of their case, Teek added that he raised his position against the allegation in his plea explanation.

“Plea explanation cannot be rejected if it is corroborated by the evidence of the State witnesses,” Teek argued.

He stated that the evidence against him was fabricated while other evidence favourable to him was ignored, and that highlighted the incompetence of the police officers dealing with his case.

The former judge alluded to ‘criminal conduct’ of the police when there is a departure from procedures and formalities.

“The trial court admonished against the improper conduct of the police,” he stated.

According to him the court made an order that the judgment be sent to the inspector-general of the Namibian police but that he was to date still unaware as to whether this was complied with, as it was not reported back to the court.

Acting Judge Thomas Masuku postponed the matter to 22 February 2017 for a ruling.