Appeal bid against Teek thrown out

THE State suffered another humiliating – and also costly – defeat yesterday in its so far luckless quest to prove former High Court Judge President and Supreme Court Judge of Appeal Pio Teek guilty on child rape and abduction charges.

A little over 14 months after he was pronounced not guilty on eight charges at the close of the prosecution’s case against him in the High Court in Windhoek, Teek (60) again left the High Court on the winning side. This time around, though, his victory came with an added sting for the State, which not only had its application for leave to appeal dismissed, but was also ordered to pay Teek’s legal costs.On July 28 last year, South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo discharged Teek on all eight charges he faced.Teek was acquitted at the end of the prosecution’s case against him.Judge Bosielo ruled that the evidence produced by the State was so discredited and contradicted that it did not constitute sufficient grounds to expect Teek to present evidence in his defence to the court or to testify in his own defence in response to the State’s case against him.The charges against Teek, which wrecked his judicial career at a time that he held the second most senior post in Namibia’s highest court, included two counts of abduction, alternatively kidnapping and two counts of rape.He was also accused of supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18, and charges of committing an immoral or indecent act with a child under the age of 16, alternatively indecent assault.Teek denied allegations that he had abducted two girls, aged nine and ten, from the vicinity of the Katutura Single Quarters to his home on a smallholding in the Brakwater area north of Windhoek on the evening of January 28 2005.He also denied that he had given the children alcoholic drinks at his house, and that he had sexually molested them.In a written plea explanation given to the court through his defence lawyers, Teek claimed he had merely taken the children to his house with the intention to give them food, after he had found them looking dirty and neglected near the Katutura Single Quarters and after they had complained to him of being hungry.’NO, NO, NO’ Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs, who also represented the State during Teek’s trial last year, tried to argued yesterday – to no avail, it turned out – that the credibility of prosecution witnesses who testified at the trial was not destroyed to such an extent that it could be said that there was nothing left of their evidence.In the prosecution’s opinion a case had been made against Teek, and this should have required that he be put on his defence, she told the Judge.Especially on the kidnapping charge, she argued, there was evidence that the girls had been taken away from their homes and kept overnight at another place.They were kidnapped, Jacobs said.Judge Bosielo confronted Jacobs at length with what he viewed as contradictions and inconsistencies in the two girls’ testimony.When it came to defence counsel Richard Metcalfe’s turn to address the court, the Judge had a lot fewer queries.He adjourned the court for only some 55 minutes after Metcalfe’s address and Jacobs’s reply before he returned with his ruling.’TAINTED EVIDENCE’ Metcalfe argued that on the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution, the State had absolutely no chance of success on appeal against Teek’s discharge.In light of the “tainted evidence, lies and contradictions” that formed part of the prosecution’s evidence, Judge Bosielo had come to the correct conclusion when he discharged Teek at the end of the State’s case, Metcalfe remarked.With Namibia being a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights at the heart of its Constitution, any accused person is entitled to be discharged without being required to give evidence in his own defence when the State is unable to place sufficient evidence against the accused before a court, Judge Bosielo remarked in his ruling.In Teek’s trial, the State relied to a large extent, if not exclusively, on the evidence of two cardinal witnesses – the two girls allegedly abducted and then molested by Teek, the Judge added.Two children’s evidence was however marked by countless contradictions, serious inconsistencies and improbabilities, he commented.LITTLE GIRLS’ ‘IMAGINATIONS’ At some stage in the trial, he got the impression that the two girls had allowed – whether inadvertently or not – their fertile imaginations to run away with them, he said.What stood out like a sore thumb, he added, was the clear statement by one of the girls that Teek did not do any of the things he was accused of having done to her at his house, and that nothing untoward had happened to her there.This was fatal to the State’s case, the Judge said.The other girl’s evidence was even worse, he added, describing it as “riddled with serious contradictions and inconsistencies”.”In my view such evidence could not pass muster or stand careful scrutiny,” he said, before concluding that he was not persuaded that another court could come to a different conclusion than the one he had reached when he discharged Teek.Judge Bosielo also agreed with Metcalfe’s charge that some of the prosecution’s grounds for an intended appeal were not only without substance and merit, but also appear to be “frivolous and ill-conceived”.The prosecution knew, or should have known, that its application for leave to appeal was stillborn, he commented.For this reason, the State was punished with an order to pay Teek’s legal costs for the appeal bid.Louis du Pisani and Linus Mokhatu represented Teek with Metcalfe.This time around, though, his victory came with an added sting for the State, which not only had its application for leave to appeal dismissed, but was also ordered to pay Teek’s legal costs.On July 28 last year, South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo discharged Teek on all eight charges he faced.Teek was acquitted at the end of the prosecution’s case against him.Judge Bosielo ruled that the evidence produced by the State was so discredited and contradicted that it did not constitute sufficient grounds to expect Teek to present evidence in his defence to the court or to testify in his own defence in response to the State’s case against him.The charges against Teek, which wrecked his judicial career at a time that he held the second most senior post in Namibia’s highest court, included two counts of abduction, alternatively kidnapping and two counts of rape. He was also accused of supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18, and charges of committing an immoral or indecent act with a child under the age of 16, alternatively indecent assault.Teek denied allegations that he had abducted two girls, aged nine and ten, from the vicinity of the Katutura Single Quarters to his home on a smallholding in the Brakwater area north of Windhoek on the evening of January 28 2005.He also denied that he had given the children alcoholic drinks at his house, and that he had sexually molested them.In a written plea explanation given to the court through his defence lawyers, Teek claimed he had merely taken the children to his house with the intention to give them food, after he had found them looking dirty and neglected near the Katutura Single Quarters and after they had complained to him of being hungry.’NO, NO, NO’ Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs, who also represented the State during Teek’s trial last year, tried to argued yesterday – to no avail, it turned out – that the credibility of prosecution witnesses who testified at the trial was not destroyed to such an extent that it could be said that there was nothing left of their evidence.In the prosecution’s opinion a case had been made against Teek, and this should have required that he be put on his defence, she told the Judge.Especially on the kidnapping charge, she argued, there was evidence that the girls had been taken away from their homes and kept overnight at another place.They were kidnapped, Jacobs said.Judge Bosielo confronted Jacobs at length with what he viewed as contradictions and inconsistencies in the two girls’ testimony.When it came to defence counsel Richard Metcalfe’s turn to address the court, the Judge had a lot fewer queries.He adjourned the court for only some 55 minutes after Metcalfe’s address and Jacobs’s reply before he returned with his ruling. ‘TAINTED EVIDENCE’ Metcalfe argued that on the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution, the State had absolutely no chance of success on appeal against Teek’s discharge.In light of the “tainted evidence, lies and contradictions” that formed part of the prosecution’s evidence, Judge Bosielo had come to the correct conclusion when he discharged Teek at the end of the State’s case, Metcalfe remarked.With Namibia being a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights at the heart of its Constitution, any accused person is entitled to be discharged without being required to give evidence in his own defence when the State is unable to place sufficient evidence against the accused before a court, Judge Bosielo remarked in his ruling.In Teek’s trial, the State relied to a large extent, if not exclusively, on the evidence of two cardinal witnesses – the two girls allegedly abducted and then molested by Teek, the Judge added.Two children’s evidence was however marked by countless contradictions, serious inconsistencies and improbabilities, he commented. LITTLE GIRLS’ ‘IMAGINATIONS’ At some stage in the trial, he got the impression that the two girls had allowed – whether inadvertently or not – their fertile imaginations to run away with them, he said.What stood out like a sore thumb, he added, was the clear statement by one of the girls that Teek did not do any of the things he was accused of having done to her at his house, and that nothing untoward had happened to her there.This was fatal to the State’s case, the Judge said.The other girl’s evidence was even worse, he added, describing it as “riddled with serious contradictions and inconsistencies”.”In my view such evidence could not pass muster or stand careful scrutiny,” he said, before concluding that he was not persuaded that another court could come to a different conclusion than the one he had reached when he discharged Teek.Judge Bosielo also agreed with Metcalfe’s charge that some of the prosecution’s grounds for an intended appeal were not only without substance and merit, but also appear to be “frivolous and ill-conceived”.The prosecution knew, or should have known, that its application for leave to appeal was stillborn, he commented.For this reason, the State was punished with an order to pay Teek’s legal costs for the appeal bid.Louis du Pisani and Linus Mokhatu represented Teek with Metcalfe.