Staff Reporter
TJIZAKE Murangi (23), a former fitness instructor accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Frieda Amadhila (29), in April 2024, has launched an appeal in the High Court of Namibia to overturn the refusal to grant him bail by Magistrate Monica Andjaba.
Andjaba denied bail to Murangi in January 2025, based on the strength of the State’s case and fears that the accused would abscond if released on bail due to the lengthy sentence he would face if found guilty on the charge of murder, read with the provisions of the Combating of Domestic Violence Act.
The late Amadhila was stabbed more than eight times, with deep wounds indicating they were inflicted by a strong person, and had defensive wounds. The accused, Murangi, allegedly drove the deceased to Katutura Hospital; however, she was declared dead upon arrival, while Murangi was admitted to the ICU at the time due to what is believed to be a self-inflicted stab wound to the neck in a failed suicide attempt.
PICTURED: The late Frieda Amadhila and the man who is alleged to have taken her young life, Tjizake Murangi.
Appealing the denial of bail, Murangi’s legal representatives, Engelbrecht Attorneys, argued that the learned Magistrate erred in law and/or fact by finding that the Applicant (Tjizake) committed housebreaking, while in fact, this version was never presented in court. They said that the charge of housebreaking was addressed at length by the Applicant during his evidence and cross-examination, and his version remains uncontested.
“According to the statement of Arno Steyn (a neighbour of the deceased) dated 09 April 2024, he checked the deceased’s room and saw the light on but did not see anybody. That was on 07 April 2024 at about 21:00. Around 22:15, he came out because he heard a knock at the window of the deceased, but the lights were off. The Applicant disputed the sequence of events. It is evident from the judgment that the court merely paid lip service to the sequence of events and the personal circumstances of the Applicant, thus failing to take them into account. The learned Magistrate erred in law and/or fact by denying the Applicant bail based on the strength of the Respondent’s case and therefore overemphasizing the strength of the State’s case. The versions of the Appellant and Respondent were mutually destructive, and the legal principles regarding credibility tests ought to have been applied by the Court,” Engelbrecht Attorneys said.
The legal representatives further argued that the learned Magistrate erred in fact and/or law by relying on the post-mortem report without calling a doctor to testify about how the injuries were sustained or caused, thus assuming that they were caused by the Appellant.
“The learned Magistrate erred in law and/or fact in relying on the evidence that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were self-inflicted, as no J88 form was submitted, no statement was provided, and the two doctors did not testify. This is based on hearsay evidence, and no credible evidence was offered by the investigating officer. The learned Magistrate erred in fact and/or law by accepting the investigating officer’s testimony about his observations of the crime scene, footprints, and blood spots/samples and referring to a photo plan when nothing was produced,” Engelbrecht Attorneys said.
The appeal will be heard on the 31st of March 2025 in the High Court.
