Court says no evidence linked Cloete to cross-border illicit diamond trade
Staff Reporter
CHAIRMAINE Cloete, a woman who was arrested in early May 2025, will finally be going home after spending close to six months in jail following her arrest in connection with the Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) diamond heist that took place in Windhoek in January 2025, during which diamonds worth over N$300 million were stolen.
This is after High Court Judges Philanda Christiaan and Peter Shivute upheld an appeal by Charmaine, overturning a decision by a lower court magistrate to refuse her bail.
Charmaine was arrested alongside her husband, George Cloete, and his brother, Bino Cloete. They were charged with contravening the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, illicit trafficking of goods under the Diamond Act, and conspiracy to deal in unpolished diamonds. The three were nabbed after the uncovering of trips to South Africa allegedly linked to diamond trafficking, as well as unexplained large sums of money in accounts, including an alleged diamond smuggler reportedly paying for a vehicle worth N$530,000 directly to a car dealer and handing it over to the Cloetes.
Christiaan and Shivute overturned the refusal of bail and said that the previous court misdirected itself by elevating disputed indicators into proof of involvement, disregarding Charmaine’s corroborated testimony, and relying on speculative assertions about financial mobility, family ties in South Africa, and interference with investigations.
“Having considered the record and the submissions of both parties, it is evident that the investigating officer did not testify that the appellant was involved in sophisticated economic crimes or in illicit cross-border diamond dealings. His evidence-in-chief was confined to the charge of disguising the unlawful origin of property, namely monies received into the appellant’s bank account and the registration of a motor vehicle in her name. Under cross-examination, he (the investigating officer) conceded that there was no evidence that the appellant (Charmaine) travelled with her co-accused to South Africa, that she knew of the existence of diamonds, that she discussed or conspired with her co-accused to sell unpolished diamonds, or that she was involved in selling such diamonds. He further acknowledged that the charge of conspiracy did not apply to her,” the judges said.
They further added that the magistrate’s reasoning in this respect was therefore clearly wrong.
The second ground of appeal challenged the magistrate’s conclusion that the State had presented prima facie evidence against Charmaine based on large and unexplained deposits into her bank account, financial transactions linked to her cellphone, and the acquisition of a motor vehicle registered in her name.
“The appellant (Charmaine) contends that the finding amounted to a misdirection, as her undisputed evidence was that her husband controlled and operated her banking application, made the deposits, and handled the vehicle’s purchase and registration, with her role limited to signing a consent form to enable registration in her name. She maintains that these circumstances do not constitute credible indicators of her involvement.
In the present matter, the State’s allegations centred on the deposits made into the appellant’s bank account and the registration of a Ford Ranger vehicle in her name. While those facts are undisputed, Charmaine provided a detailed explanation, supported by documentation, that her husband made the deposits, operated her banking account, and arranged for the vehicle registration, with her role limited to providing consent at his request,” the judges summarized.
They concluded that Charmaine’s testimony was supported by the Financial Intelligence Agency (FIA) form and was further strengthened by the investigating officer’s concessions under cross-examination that he had no direct evidence linking her to the acquisition of the vehicle or knowledge of the deposits before they were made.
“Applying these principles, the State’s reliance on deposits into the appellant’s account and the registration of the Ford Ranger in her name falls short of establishing a strong prima facie case. The appellant’s explanation, supported by exhibits and concessions by the investigating officer, showed that her husband effected the transactions and used her details for registration. Much of the State’s case rested on hearsay, which, when disputed, should have carried little weight,” the judges said.
