Staff Reporter
BROTHERS George and Bino Cloete, who were arrested in May 2025 in relation to the over N$300 million diamond heist at Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) that took place in January 2025, are appealing against the Keetmanshoop Magistrate’s Court decision to deny them bail.
Bino and George Cloete are siblings of Charles Rhoman, a former protection officer at Namdia who was also arrested in relation to the robbery and remains incarcerated. George and Bino face three counts, which include two charges in relation to the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, money laundering, as well as the illicit trafficking of stolen goods, and count three, contravening the Diamond Act, conspiring and inducing another person to commit an offence.
During bail proceedings, it had been revealed that between January 2025 and March 2025, Bino told the court under cross-examination that large sums totalling close to N$2 million were deposited into an account by his brother George Cloete. The said funds are said to be linked to the proceeds of crime from the diamond heist. The State alleges that the said funds were used to buy livestock and a vehicle after the diamonds were allegedly sold in Port Nolloth, South Africa.
After the refusal of their bail on 7 May 2026, the lawyer representing the Cloete brothers, Percy McNally, in the High Court appeal, has argued that Magistrate Mulonda Masuka erred when he found that the offences the brothers are charged with are serious in nature.
“In dealing with this aspect of the matter, the Learned Magistrate reasoned as follows: ‘The alleged offences are serious in nature, which involves sophisticated economic crimes which involves the disguising of unlawful origin of property and the trafficking of illicit diamonds.’ The seriousness of the offences is evident from the sentencing provisions as stipulated in the respective legislation. However, the court has to note that there is no evidence that points to the applicants trafficking of illicit diamonds,” McNally argued on behalf of the brothers.
According to the investigating officer, Charles Rhoman, an employee of NAMDIA, handed these diamonds to George and Bino, who in turn drove to South Africa, where they sold these diamonds. According to the investigating officer, Inspector Frans Job, the proceeds of these diamond sales were deposited into the bank accounts of George and Bino.
McNally, however, argued that the Magistrate had made several factual errors when taking this into account with regard to the refusal of bail.
“It is respectfully submitted that this evidence of Inspector Job is nothing but conjecture… and then, to add insult to injury, he goes ahead and draws inferences therefrom and relays those inferences to the Court as if they are facts. What is striking is that Charles Rhoman, to date, has not been charged with the alleged theft of diamonds from the premises of NAMDIA. It is respectfully submitted that it is the forte of the court to draw inferences from proven facts. It must be stated right from the onset that there has been no evidence adduced whatsoever to substantiate these allegations. Quite rightly so, the Learned Magistrate has found that there was no evidence pointing to the Appellants’ trafficking of illicit diamonds,” McNally argued.
He added that if the Appellants (George and Bino) did not traffic diamonds to South Africa and bring the proceeds thereof to Namibia, it places an entirely different dimension on the State’s case.
“The court is left with the explanation of the respected Appellants, namely, in respect of Appellant 1 (George), that he went to South Africa for a refresher course in forex trading and, in respect of Second Appellant (Bino), that he accompanied his brother since he wanted to visit Rosh Pinah to enquire about employment opportunities,” McNally argued.
The brothers, during bail proceedings, had argued that the large sums of money had been from forex windfall profits, however, failed to provide financial proof of these transactions. McNally argued that this was due to the fact that a trial-awaiting prisoner does not have access to computers and other electronic mobile devices or the internet. He thus prayed that the court grant the brothers bail in the amount of N$20 000 each.
Arguing on behalf of the Prosecutor General against the bail appeal, State Advocate Ian Malumani said that the State had disclosed the financial records of the brothers, which showed that there were no financial activities that they had ventured into which would have yielded the large amounts of money in the brothers’ bank accounts overnight, and the onus was upon them to prove otherwise.
Malumani further said that the State adduced evidence to the effect that, at trial, it will produce evidence that the brothers engaged in unlawful activity, to wit, they obtained large amounts of money and purchased livestock and vehicles when they knew such money was derived from illegal transactions.
“The appellants, as they admitted, travelled to South Africa for such transactions. They had to disguise the original source of funds by flashing the source of income as originating from forex trading and/or cryptocurrency transactions; therefore, we submit that it was incumbent upon the appellants to at least demonstrate to the court how they acquired their funds by production of financial statements,” Malumani said.
He further said that there is also proof that the Cloete brothers interfered with State witnesses in the matter and, as such, are not good candidates for bail.
“They were in touch with State witnesses to whom they gave instructions to move livestock which were bought out of the alleged proceeds of crime. The said livestock, which were the subject matter of the investigations, were moved from one farm to another,” Malumani said.
He added that it was correct for the court to believe hearsay evidence that the Cloetes were given the diamonds by Charles Rhoman, who worked for Namdia, and that they cannot argue against this.
“We submit that it is settled law in our jurisdiction that the rules of evidence during bail applications are relaxed and such hearsay evidence is admissible. It is our submission that the court did not misdirect itself when it accepted such a piece of evidence of possible involvement of Charles Rhoman, who is the brother of the appellants and admitted to have worked for Namdia,” Malumani said.
Photo: NBC Digital News
