Staff Reporter
THE former minister of justice, entangled in a fisheries corruption trial, has said that statements made by High Court acting judge Marelize du Plessis, in which she claimed that interlocutory applications brought forth by Shanghala are a “delay tactic”, show that the judge is biased towards him and thus warrant a recusal.
Shanghala made these arguments in a recusal application he brought forth in conjunction with his co-accused James Hatuikulipi in the matter.
“The first ground is that you said that the applications were without merit and that we are engaged in a tactical delay strategy. This was said in all the previous applications and not only one. Before you are three applications – one I made against leave to appeal on 21 January. You went to paint all applications as without merit and a tactical delay strategy. Chinhengo opined that only one of my applications was without merit for the relief sought,” Shanghala said.
Further to this, Shanghala stated that the judge does not treat everyone in the matter equally.
He added that the High Court judge, on 21 January 2026, dismissed an application before her to postpone the commencement of the Fishrot trial. He added that audience was granted to parties, namely Ricardo Gustavo’s new lawyer, Illeni Gebhardt, on whether she was trial-ready, whilst Gustavo had not initially opposed the postponement application which had been initiated in November 2025.
He added that averments made by Joas Neetwatya, representing Otniel Shuudifonya, were not taken into consideration, and that the judgment dismissing the postponement of the trial mainly hinged on averments made by the state prosecutor and those of Gebhardt.
Furthermore, Shanghala claimed that the judge in the matter does not have the required expertise, as she had, before presiding over the Fishrot trial, no experience in court, claiming that the court does not have the competence to hear the matter.
Veiko Alexander, who represents Mike Nghipunya, supported the removal of the judge on two grounds, which include the fact that she is acquainted with two state witnesses and that she is not competent to hear the matter.
“Bias might not be in the mind of the honourable judge, but certain conduct and expressions could lead accused to believe that the judge is infected by bias. This is the position accused seven finds himself in. A lot is said in opposing papers by the state and accused one with regard to delay tactics. The danger, my lady, of the court approaching this application from the point of view that this is a delay tactic is that the court would be bound to arrive at a wrong conclusion,” Alexander said.
He added that he, however, concedes that a review application be made separately to test the competence of the court, when queried by the judge on that subject.
Photos: NBC Digital News
