Fishcor: De Klerk a crucial witness
"Marèn de Klerk's testimony is essential for this case and is the only direct evidence regarding a meeting in 2016 between him, Sacky Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Adriaan Louw, where the plans for the corruption scheme were discussed."
This is according to the National Fishing Corporation of Namibia's (Fishcor's) application for leave to appeal against Judge Orben Sibeya's decision that Fishrot accused Marèn de Klerk cannot testify via video connection.
The hearing for the application for leave to appeal the judgment in the Supreme Court was heard in the Windhoek High Court on Wednesday.
Seaflower Pelagic Processing (SPP), whose name has since changed to Princess Brand Processing (PPP), and African Selection Fishing (ASF), oppose the application.
The proceedings form part of the main case in which Fishcor is demanding that various agreements that the company says were signed under corrupt circumstances be annulled.
Key witness
De Klerk is Fishcor's key witness and is willing to testify about the corrupt environment in which these agreements were entered into, which forms the basis for Fishcor's case.
However, De Klerk is still abroad. He refuses to return to Namibia, claiming fear for his life.
SPP and ASF argue that no objective evidence has been provided to justify De Klerk's reason for his absence.
"De Klerk's alleged belief that his life is in danger is nothing more than speculation and cannot be justified on any rational principle."
According to the application for leave to appeal, De Klerk's testimony is essential to support Fishcor's case, as he would testify about a meeting that took place on 30 December 2016 in the Western Cape, during which the plans were discussed.
"The other individuals who were in the meeting, except for Adriaan Louw, are facing serious criminal charges and are not prepared to testify."
Grounds of appeal
Fishcor has submitted several grounds for their appeal against Sibeya's judgment of 21 October 2022.
Fishcor claims Sibeya erred when he dismissed the application, as the matter is in the public interest and justice will not be done if De Klerk is prevented from testifying.
Second, Fishcor argues that Sibeya did not sufficiently consider their right to a fair trial.
"The courtroom must not be closed to key witnesses who find themselves geographically outside the jurisdiction of the court," they argue.
Fishcor claims that the company would be far more harmed by the refusal of the application than the respondents would be by the granting of the application.
Reasonable prospects of success
Fishcor also says the court did not attach enough weight to De Klerk's explanation for his absence and fear for his life.
And, that the chances are slim that De Klerk will be extradited, and be available to testify in person, as he has already evaded authorities for 18 months.
The fourth ground for appeal relates to the court's finding that there was insufficient information about the technical aspects of the video connection included in the application. Fishcor claims that many countries, including South Africa, successfully use this medium, and Namibian courts have used it without any problems.
Fishcor believes there is a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will come to a different conclusion than that of Sibeya, but SPP and ASF claim in their main arguments that Fishcor has no prospects of success.
– [email protected]
This is according to the National Fishing Corporation of Namibia's (Fishcor's) application for leave to appeal against Judge Orben Sibeya's decision that Fishrot accused Marèn de Klerk cannot testify via video connection.
The hearing for the application for leave to appeal the judgment in the Supreme Court was heard in the Windhoek High Court on Wednesday.
Seaflower Pelagic Processing (SPP), whose name has since changed to Princess Brand Processing (PPP), and African Selection Fishing (ASF), oppose the application.
The proceedings form part of the main case in which Fishcor is demanding that various agreements that the company says were signed under corrupt circumstances be annulled.
Key witness
De Klerk is Fishcor's key witness and is willing to testify about the corrupt environment in which these agreements were entered into, which forms the basis for Fishcor's case.
However, De Klerk is still abroad. He refuses to return to Namibia, claiming fear for his life.
SPP and ASF argue that no objective evidence has been provided to justify De Klerk's reason for his absence.
"De Klerk's alleged belief that his life is in danger is nothing more than speculation and cannot be justified on any rational principle."
According to the application for leave to appeal, De Klerk's testimony is essential to support Fishcor's case, as he would testify about a meeting that took place on 30 December 2016 in the Western Cape, during which the plans were discussed.
"The other individuals who were in the meeting, except for Adriaan Louw, are facing serious criminal charges and are not prepared to testify."
Grounds of appeal
Fishcor has submitted several grounds for their appeal against Sibeya's judgment of 21 October 2022.
Fishcor claims Sibeya erred when he dismissed the application, as the matter is in the public interest and justice will not be done if De Klerk is prevented from testifying.
Second, Fishcor argues that Sibeya did not sufficiently consider their right to a fair trial.
"The courtroom must not be closed to key witnesses who find themselves geographically outside the jurisdiction of the court," they argue.
Fishcor claims that the company would be far more harmed by the refusal of the application than the respondents would be by the granting of the application.
Reasonable prospects of success
Fishcor also says the court did not attach enough weight to De Klerk's explanation for his absence and fear for his life.
And, that the chances are slim that De Klerk will be extradited, and be available to testify in person, as he has already evaded authorities for 18 months.
The fourth ground for appeal relates to the court's finding that there was insufficient information about the technical aspects of the video connection included in the application. Fishcor claims that many countries, including South Africa, successfully use this medium, and Namibian courts have used it without any problems.
Fishcor believes there is a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will come to a different conclusion than that of Sibeya, but SPP and ASF claim in their main arguments that Fishcor has no prospects of success.
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article