Staff Reporter
WENTZEL Maasdorp, the 40-year-old man accused of murdering his domestic partner, Delia Weimers-Maasdorp (40), in April 2024, is set to hear the fate of his bail application on 7 February 2025.
Maasdorp is facing one count of murder, as well as charges of theft and housebreaking, after allegedly murdering Weimers-Maasdorp in her Klein Windhoek flat on 25 April 2024 and thereafter stealing her mobile phone, television, and car.
State Prosecutor Eric Naikaku objected to bail due to the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the State’s case, the fear of reoffending, and the argument that granting the accused bail would not be in the interest of the public or the administration of justice.
Defence lawyer Samuel Shinedima, however, argued that his client is a suitable candidate for bail, adding that the Namibian Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He further stated that the denial of bail should not be used as anticipatory punishment against the accused.
Shinedima also argued that the seriousness of the offence should not be the sole determining factor when considering bail. Regarding the State’s assertion that it has a strong case against his client, he said that bail applications should not be based on the merits of the case but rather on factors such as whether the accused would abscond or interfere with investigations. He added that much of the evidence presented in court against the accused delved into the merits of the matter rather than bail considerations.
He further stated that Maasdorp’s four children would be negatively affected if the court denied him bail. Additionally, he argued that if granted bail, Maasdorp would be offered employment by his father, a businessman, and would reside at his father’s residence. He added that his client was willing to comply with a wide array of bail conditions, including reporting twice to the nearest police station, limited travel, and a commitment not to contact State witnesses or investigators in the matter.
State Prosecutor Naikaku, however, countered that the accused was out on bail for a housebreaking charge when he committed the current offence. He further asserted that the strength of the State’s case was undisputed and that the accused’s choice to remain silent when presented with key points on the merits of the case could prove detrimental to his bid for bail.
Naikaku argued that Maasdorp is a crack cocaine abuser who did not dispute that, after killing the victim, he removed certain items from her flat and sold them in exchange for money and drugs. He also stated that no evidence was presented to prove that the accused cared for his children, which could have been demonstrated through bank statements.
He added that the country is currently facing a surge in violent crimes against its most vulnerable members—women and children—and that it is the court’s duty to protect them. He further contended that the accused is a danger to society.
In bail proceedings, the State is not required to prove its case against the accused but must show that there is sufficient evidence—usually in the form of witness statements and other documents—to indicate the accused’s guilt. “This is what the State did in the present case. The investigating officer narrated to the court the nature of the police investigation, the results of forensic evidence collected from the victim and the accused, and two witness statements,” Naikaku said.
