Staff Reporter<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Fishrot-accused businessman James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo, and former Minister of Justice Sacky Shanghala, in which they sought to overturn a High Court judgement that led to the freezing of their assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dismissal of the appeal application will now see the Prosecutor General (PG) executing the restraint order of assets of the Fishrot accused in foreign jurisdictions, as the matter has now been finalised at the highest court of appeal. The suspects in the Fishrot case are said to own properties abroad, including luxury homes in Cape Town, Dubai, England, and Spain. These properties are mostly owned by former Investec Asset Management Namibia managing director James Hatuikulipi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The assets captured under the 2020 restraint order unearthed a modern eldorado of alleged tainted riches, with over 134 vehicles seized, including luxury cars such as Range Rover Sport, Ford Ranger 3.2 Wildtrak, Range Rover 5.0 V8, Volkswagen Amarok 3.0, and Mercedes-Benz R231, 36 immovable properties, 36 bank accounts, and over 20 companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The appeal on the asset restraint was heard by Supreme Court judges, acting judges of appeal, Justice Theo Jooste Frank, Lady Justice Rita Makarau, and Johanna Prinsloo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The restraint order against the assets of the Fishrot accused was initially granted in November 2020, when the High Court temporarily froze the assets while investigations into alleged corruption and money laundering were ongoing. The order was later confirmed, allowing it to remain in force until criminal proceedings are finalised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their appeal, the accused argued that the investigation used to secure the freezing of their assets was improperly conducted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the time of the application, the appellants faced charges forming part of Schedule 1 offences under POCA, including fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and corrupt practices, thereby satisfying the first requirement. In respect of the second requirement, the Prosecutor General (PG) relied on an affidavit by a Chief Investigating Officer of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Andreas Kanyangela), who, together with members of the Namibian Police Force, investigated the charges against the appellants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Fishrot accused opposed the confirmation of the provisional restraint order on the basis that the evidence relied upon by the PG was unlawful. They argued that the investigations were conducted by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) rather than an authorised member of the police as contemplated in section 83, rendering the application invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court judges, in their judgment, however held that once it is accepted, as it must for purposes of this case, that the Chief Investigating Officer, Kanyangela, was entitled to investigate corrupt practices against the appellants, the evidence gathered pursuant to such investigation can be used by the PG to launch a restraint application if deemed sufficient by him or her for this purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNeither the role of NAMPOL nor the role of Mr Kanyangela in the joint investigation is under attack in the appeal. I cannot see the relevance of section 83 to this matter. NAMPOL\u2019s part of the investigation is not attacked at all and the ACC\u2019s investigation was provided to the PG pursuant to section 31 of the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) and was thus in accordance with the law,\u201d the Supreme Court judges said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They further said that they agree with the approach of the court a quo that section 83 does not restrict nor prescribe the powers of the PG.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt does not restrict the PG to base a restraint application solely on the evidence collected by the police or the ACC but, in context, is to assist the PG where further investigations are necessary so as to enable the PG to bring a civil proceeding in terms of POCA,\u201d the judges said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Fishrot suspects were arrested towards the end of 2019, after being ensnared in the over N$300 million money laundering, corruption, and racketeering case, where the suspects ensured that government objective fishing quotas were channelled to Icelandic fishing company Samherji HF in return for bribes, which were allegedly disguised as consultancy fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Photo: Contributed<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Staff Reporter THE Supreme Court has dismissed an application by Fishrot-accused businessman James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo, and former Minister of Justice Sacky Shanghala, in which they sought to overturn a High Court judgement that led to the freezing of their assets. The dismissal of the appeal application will now see the Prosecutor General (PG) executing …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":392667,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-392666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n