Hinda-Mbuende, Amupanda's defamation case nears conclusion
Judgment set for August
The three-year defamation case that Hinda-Mbuende brought against Amupanda continued on Monday in the High Court in Windhoek with final arguments.
Deputy finance minister Maureen Hinda-Mbuende argued this week that Dr Job Amupanda, in a series of Facebook and X posts (formerly Twitter), implied that she is promiscuous and portrayed her as someone with questionable moral values.
Aside from the initial post on Amupanda's social media platforms in July 2021 – which allegedly depicted her as a violent Damara woman – her legal representative also referred to several subsequent posts that allegedly portrayed Hinda-Mbuende in a bad light.
These submissions were made by Hinda-Mbuende's legal team during the closing arguments in her defamation case against Amupanda in the Windhoek High Court earlier this week.
Online posts
One of these posts was made by Amupanda on Facebook in January 2022 with the caption 'The consequences of rejecting the sugar from the mommy', accompanied by a Namibian Sun article titled 'Hinda sues Amupanda for N$1 million'.
On the same day, on Twitter, Amupanda retweeted an article from the Windhoek Observer about the same matter, with the caption 'January Hunger Games osanika osponga', loosely translated to mean 'It is dangerous'.
According to Hinda-Mbuende, the following day Amupanda retweeted a post by the Namibian Sun that read: “The deputy finance minister took issue with a Facebook post by the then-mayor, who told Namibian Sun yesterday that the minister is angry because he rejected her unwanted advances during his days in Swapo.”
He added 'Etondo lyaantu lyaNehale is not for sale' to the post, which loosely translates to “my balls are not for sale.”
These social media posts were made two months after Hinda-Mbuende initiated legal action against Amupanda. She claims they implied to the public and his large number of social media followers that she was untrustworthy and had tried to buy sex.
Amupanda's arguments
In his final arguments, Amupanda claimed that Hinda-Mbuende did not prove a case of defamation against him.
He argued that the testimony of Vitalio Angula, who testified in support of Hinda-Mbuende, mostly consisted of hearsay evidence and his personal opinion. He further argued that Angula's testimony was unreliable due to his bias against Amupanda, as he had written several negative articles about him.
Amupanda also scrutinised the testimony of another one of Hinda-Mbuende's witnesses, Ute Sinkala, stating that her statements were merely unfounded opinions with little value.
Hinda-Mbuende took the stand in addition to calling two witnesses.
Amupanda also took the stand during the trial.
The judgment is scheduled for 15 August.
– [email protected]
Aside from the initial post on Amupanda's social media platforms in July 2021 – which allegedly depicted her as a violent Damara woman – her legal representative also referred to several subsequent posts that allegedly portrayed Hinda-Mbuende in a bad light.
These submissions were made by Hinda-Mbuende's legal team during the closing arguments in her defamation case against Amupanda in the Windhoek High Court earlier this week.
Online posts
One of these posts was made by Amupanda on Facebook in January 2022 with the caption 'The consequences of rejecting the sugar from the mommy', accompanied by a Namibian Sun article titled 'Hinda sues Amupanda for N$1 million'.
On the same day, on Twitter, Amupanda retweeted an article from the Windhoek Observer about the same matter, with the caption 'January Hunger Games osanika osponga', loosely translated to mean 'It is dangerous'.
According to Hinda-Mbuende, the following day Amupanda retweeted a post by the Namibian Sun that read: “The deputy finance minister took issue with a Facebook post by the then-mayor, who told Namibian Sun yesterday that the minister is angry because he rejected her unwanted advances during his days in Swapo.”
He added 'Etondo lyaantu lyaNehale is not for sale' to the post, which loosely translates to “my balls are not for sale.”
These social media posts were made two months after Hinda-Mbuende initiated legal action against Amupanda. She claims they implied to the public and his large number of social media followers that she was untrustworthy and had tried to buy sex.
Amupanda's arguments
In his final arguments, Amupanda claimed that Hinda-Mbuende did not prove a case of defamation against him.
He argued that the testimony of Vitalio Angula, who testified in support of Hinda-Mbuende, mostly consisted of hearsay evidence and his personal opinion. He further argued that Angula's testimony was unreliable due to his bias against Amupanda, as he had written several negative articles about him.
Amupanda also scrutinised the testimony of another one of Hinda-Mbuende's witnesses, Ute Sinkala, stating that her statements were merely unfounded opinions with little value.
Hinda-Mbuende took the stand in addition to calling two witnesses.
Amupanda also took the stand during the trial.
The judgment is scheduled for 15 August.
– [email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article