Fishrot-implicated
Jemima BeukesWINDHOEK
Some of the Icelandic companies implicated in the so-called Fishrot bribery scandal have applied to the High Court for permission to appeal. This after their application to cross-examine Prosecutor-General (PG) Martha Imalwa and whistle-blower Jóhannes Stefánsson was dismissed last month.
These companies include Icelandic fishing giant Samherji’s Namibian subsidiaries Esja Holding, Mermaria Seafood Namibia, Saga Seafood, Heinaste Investments (Namibia), Saga Investment and Esja Investment. In new papers filed yesterday, the companies are now also seeking leave to appeal the order that they should pay the PG’s legal costs in their failed application.
They argued that High Court judge Orben Sibeya should have acknowledged that they would suffer irreparable harm in circumstances where they are deprived of the opportunity to solicit all the facts in the PG possession through cross examination before the court applies an “on the face of it” test.
The companies said the High Court erred in rejecting their allegations that the key witness in the matter, Stefansson, will not testify, thereby prejudging the issue.
Court made mistakes
“In doing so, the court erroneously found that the applicants are simply being speculative, and thus no fact or suggestion is put forward why Mr Stefansson will not attend the trial and testify. In doing so, the court erred in not recognising that a dispute exists between the parties on whether the first respondent’s star witness [Stefánsson] will testify based on the proper facts placed by the applicants before court,” a statement read.
The companies also feel the court made a mistake by holding their failure to disclose their whereabouts and their intention to oppose any extradition proceedings - based on their view that they are not complicit in any crime - against them.
“This adverse finding against the applicants impairs the exercise of any discretion. Lawful conduct may not be ‘punished’, more so where it appears that cross-examination may very well show that the PG does know the whereabouts of those she targets with extradition.
“On the face of the affidavits the PG filed, she at least seems to suggest that all the applicants are not in Iceland. So, she seems to suggest where some of the applicants are not finding themselves,” the papers read.
[email protected]
Some of the Icelandic companies implicated in the so-called Fishrot bribery scandal have applied to the High Court for permission to appeal. This after their application to cross-examine Prosecutor-General (PG) Martha Imalwa and whistle-blower Jóhannes Stefánsson was dismissed last month.
These companies include Icelandic fishing giant Samherji’s Namibian subsidiaries Esja Holding, Mermaria Seafood Namibia, Saga Seafood, Heinaste Investments (Namibia), Saga Investment and Esja Investment. In new papers filed yesterday, the companies are now also seeking leave to appeal the order that they should pay the PG’s legal costs in their failed application.
They argued that High Court judge Orben Sibeya should have acknowledged that they would suffer irreparable harm in circumstances where they are deprived of the opportunity to solicit all the facts in the PG possession through cross examination before the court applies an “on the face of it” test.
The companies said the High Court erred in rejecting their allegations that the key witness in the matter, Stefansson, will not testify, thereby prejudging the issue.
Court made mistakes
“In doing so, the court erroneously found that the applicants are simply being speculative, and thus no fact or suggestion is put forward why Mr Stefansson will not attend the trial and testify. In doing so, the court erred in not recognising that a dispute exists between the parties on whether the first respondent’s star witness [Stefánsson] will testify based on the proper facts placed by the applicants before court,” a statement read.
The companies also feel the court made a mistake by holding their failure to disclose their whereabouts and their intention to oppose any extradition proceedings - based on their view that they are not complicit in any crime - against them.
“This adverse finding against the applicants impairs the exercise of any discretion. Lawful conduct may not be ‘punished’, more so where it appears that cross-examination may very well show that the PG does know the whereabouts of those she targets with extradition.
“On the face of the affidavits the PG filed, she at least seems to suggest that all the applicants are not in Iceland. So, she seems to suggest where some of the applicants are not finding themselves,” the papers read.
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article