Video: Katrina Hanse-Himarwa in court. Footage: Eba Kandovazu
Eba Kandovazu
THE submission of final arguments in the corruption trial of Katrina Hanse-Himarwa will continue in the morning because counsel for the defence of the Minister of Education, Arts and Culture did not complete his presentation before Judge Christie Liebenberg on Tuesday.
While delivering his final arguments in the High Court in Windhoek, Sisa Namandje blamed subordinates of the former Hardap Regional Governor for the actions that eventually led to the corruption charges against his client.
Namandje, stated that the former subordinates, who testified on behalf of the prosecution, were not uneducated people.
“They knew the law and should have known that the Governor did not have the power to decide or direct that the housing beneficiary be changed.”
He was referring to officials who acted as witnesses for the prosecution and argued that they acted as puppets and were willingly manipulated to testify. Namandje specifically alluded to the people who attended the meeting where the purported instructions to change the beneficiary list were given.
While submitting the prosecution’s heads of argument State Advocate Ed Marondedze argued that the defence’s statement that the accused person did not type the amended list herself should not be allowed because that would only serve to trivialise the allegations.
“Even though she did not type the document herself, she gave the directive for it to be done. Her actions as testified to by the state witnesses are an indication that she was properly charged.’ Advocate Marondedze stated further that there was no need for the state to charge the Chief Executive Officer of the Mariental Town Council, Paul Ngiwilepo or the Deputy Director for Housing, Merrow Thaniseb, and their subordinates as suggested by the defence because they didn’t make the decisions to affect changes to the beneficiary list.
“They were merely following instructions given by the Governor.”
With regard to claims of the defence that the investigations were biased against the accused person Advocate Marondedze argued that both the prosecution and defence were working in unison to ensure that the accused person did indeed receive a fair trial.
“One does not bring unmerited cases to court. The procedures followed during the investigation were pure, legal and clear.”
Advocate Marondedze further argued that the accused person, while testifying in her own defence, referred to her family member as her mother’s sister’s daughter’s child.
“She tried by every means possible to put as much distance between that person and herself instead of simply saying my niece. By expressing herself in this manner the accused person revealed a clear intention to commit these offenses.”
Advocate Marondedze stated that all the evidence before court concludes that the removal of certain names from the housing beneficiary list was indeed the directive of the accused person.
“We submit that in ordinary terms the court is required to prove the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the state has indeed proven the charges are beyond any reasonable doubt and it is my prayer that this court finds the accused person guilty on the charges against her.”
