EDITORIAL: Amushelelo forfeiture ruling is bizarre
In law, the term ‘precedent’ is used to describe a court decision that is considered an authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.
It is such an important principle – even beyond the legal fraternity. The ruling on Friday in favour of the prosecutor general to forfeit assets belonging to controversial activist Michael Amushelelo and his business partner Gregory Cloete has set a precedent of its own.
As matters stand, Amushelelo is innocent. This status could change after the trial, if he fails to prove his innocence. But until then, he remains innocent.
It is thus bizarre that the court has decided to forfeit his assets, while the very trial on whose basis those items were seized by the State has not yet started.
The principle of forfeiture is a good one because it preserves ill-acquired assets before they could be sold or destroyed by those who stole them. But once they are in the safe hands of the State, we do not see the need to rush forfeiture before one is convicted.
Presiding judge Thomas Masuku remarked in his judgment that he was satisfied that there is a greater than 50% chance that the criminal allegations against Amushelelo are true. If that is so, it makes little sense that he expedited the forfeiture when, in fact, the court could’ve just waited to do this once the man has been found guilty of scamming his so-called investors.
It is such an important principle – even beyond the legal fraternity. The ruling on Friday in favour of the prosecutor general to forfeit assets belonging to controversial activist Michael Amushelelo and his business partner Gregory Cloete has set a precedent of its own.
As matters stand, Amushelelo is innocent. This status could change after the trial, if he fails to prove his innocence. But until then, he remains innocent.
It is thus bizarre that the court has decided to forfeit his assets, while the very trial on whose basis those items were seized by the State has not yet started.
The principle of forfeiture is a good one because it preserves ill-acquired assets before they could be sold or destroyed by those who stole them. But once they are in the safe hands of the State, we do not see the need to rush forfeiture before one is convicted.
Presiding judge Thomas Masuku remarked in his judgment that he was satisfied that there is a greater than 50% chance that the criminal allegations against Amushelelo are true. If that is so, it makes little sense that he expedited the forfeiture when, in fact, the court could’ve just waited to do this once the man has been found guilty of scamming his so-called investors.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article