Staff Reporter
HIGH Court judge Marilize du Plessis has allowed the heads of arguments filed by Ricardo Gustavo, in which he opposes an application made by Sackeus Shanghala to recuse the Fishrot judge, to be taken into the court record.
With most of the accused in the matter jailed since November 2019, divergent perspectives have emerged among the co-accused regarding the setting of trial dates. Some opine that they have been incarcerated for a long time and wish to dispose of the matter speedily, while others believe that certain issues, such as the way evidence was collected, should be legally challenged in a review application before the High Court.
Gustavo is currently opposing the application to remove (recuse) Judge du Plessis from presiding over the Fishrot trial and has argued that Shanghala has not shown evidence to demonstrate how the judge is biased, which is necessary for an order of recusal to be made. He further stated that every time a trial date is set, an interlocutory application is brought before the court, delaying the trial.
During the arguments, Shanghala claimed that the lawyer Illeni Gebhardt, who represents Gustavo, has a busy schedule and is not ready for the continuation of the Fishrot trial despite her stating otherwise.
“Gebhardt was on a retreat, and then she went to Walvis Bay. She should have made a request before going to the coast that she is not ready… She can’t file answering affidavits on time, or is too busy to file heads in time. It gives me the impression that she is not ready for trial. I literally have three hours, at the maximum five, to prepare because I am in a maximum-security facility. You would be running away from the truth as it is chasing you if you say that it is of no relevance. She came late, she found the party is off, she gets no cake,” Shanghala said.
Judge du Plessis, however, allowed the heads of arguments filed on behalf of Gustavo by Gebhardt to be included in the record, stating that reasons for this would be provided alongside the recusal application judgment.
Picture for illustrative purposes only. Photo: File
