Staff Reporter
A RECUSAL application to have High Court Judge Dinah Usiku removed as the managing judge of the murder trial of a man identified as Roger Beeth (36) has been dismissed.
Beeth is charged with one count of murder, read with the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, as well as defeating or obstructing the course of justice or an attempt thereto, after he allegedly murdered his girlfriend in Gobabis.
The State alleged that between 3 and 4 March 2023, at or near Otjinene, the accused killed his then girlfriend, Bertha Witbooi. It is alleged that thereafter Beeth, with the intent to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, destroyed a piece of stick or dropper pole by burning it and/or reported to other people and/or the police that the deceased arrived home having already been assaulted and/or injured herself.
In her judgment, Usiku said she would not remove herself from presiding over Beeth’s case, ruling that there had been no convincing evidence that the court was biased.
During the trial, Beeth disputed the admissibility of a confession and pointing out made by him to police officers, on the basis that his constitutional right against self-incrimination was not sufficiently explained to him before he made the confession and pointing out.
As a result, a trial-within-a-trial ensued. On 8 June 2026, Beeth’s lawyer, Joas Neemwatya, cross-examined Chief Inspector Kuutondokwa, the officer to whom the confession was made.
Judge Usiku said it was evident from the record that the witness had already testified in chief that he explained the applicant’s rights to him, including the right against self-incrimination.
“The applicant’s counsel, when considering the context in which the comment was made. I set out the context as follows. Counsel (Neemwatya) for the applicant (Beeth) put it to the witness that the accused’s rights were not explained sufficiently and that is why the answer recorded by the witness in the pro forma of the confession is ‘I will conduct my own defence and make a confession without a lawyer’. Additionally, counsel put it to the witness that the witness himself added the part of making a confession himself. The witness’ response was that he explained the rights, and that that was the accused’s answer to the question on legal representation,” the judge said.
She added that the court took issue with the fact that Neemwatya read part of the pro forma (a form which outlines the formal details of a confession) out of context, which would be unfair to the witness required to answer, and endeavoured to contextualise it to some extent, which the court had the right to do.
“The court may not sit back as an umpire, whilst a document admitted as evidence before court is used in a manner that may mislead the witness because it is devoid of context. The court has a duty to see to it that justice is done,” Usiku said.
She added that after both parties led their respective cases in the trial-within-a-trial, the court ruled the confession to be admissible evidence.
“It is at this point that the applicant had the option to apply for leave to appeal that ruling. As much as the court is required to recuse itself when the test for recusal is satisfied, it has an equal duty not to recuse itself where the facts of the matter do not warrant recusal,” Usiku said.
Picture for illustrative purposes only. Photo: File
