Cop insists he saw ‘blue movie’ at Teek’s house

ONE of the Police constables who visited the house of former Judge Pio Teek shortly after the Police received a complaint of kidnapping and child molestation against him insisted in the High Court yesterday that he had seen the cover of a pornographic video lying in the then Judge’s lounge.

Constable Wilhelm Angula, a member of the Police’s Woman and Child Protection Unit, was the main witness giving testimony yesterday as Teek’s trial before South African Judge Ronnie Bosielo proceeded for a third day. Teek is denying guilt on eight charges, including two counts of rape and two counts of abduction or kidnapping, and a range of alternative charges that include two counts of indecent assault and two counts of supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18.He is facing allegations that he had picked up two girls aged nine and ten in Katutura on the evening of Friday, January 28, last year, and that he took them to his home in the Brakwater area north of the city.On the way there and at his home, it is charged, he sexually fondled the younger girl.He is further accused of having showed the children a pornographic video at his house, where he allegedly also sexually fondled the younger girl again.In a plea explanation given to the court at the start of the trial on Monday, Teek stated that he had acted with only noble intentions when he picked up the two girls, who were complaining of not having eaten all day and of being hungry.His intention was to give them food at his house, and he did that and then returned them to Katutura the next morning, since they had fallen asleep at his house and spent the night sleeping there, he explained.Angula and a colleague from the Woman and Child Protection Unit, Constable Chrispa Gom-Khaiseb, were the first Police officers to visit Teek’s house after a complaint was registered with the Police.Both of them told the court that the children, accompanied by their mothers, directed them to the house.Only when they saw Teek and the children said he was the man that they claimed had picked them up in Katutura the night before, did they realise that a Judge was the suspect in the case, they related.According to the two officers, Teek invited them into the house and showed them around, explaining that the children had eaten there and then slept over.According to Angula, it was while they were walking through the house that he noticed the cover of a pornographic video lying on a table in a lounge.”I could see that it was people who were naked, and people having sexual intercourse, that it was a blue-movie cassette,” he said.Angula said because he and Gom-Khaiseb – who did not see the video cover – were junior Police officers and a Judge was involved in the case, he thought they could neither carry out any seizure of evidence nor arrest the Judge, so they left.Only late that afternoon did a Police team, led by a senior officer, Deputy Commissioner Marius Visser, return to Teek’s house to conduct a search.No pornographic material was discovered.”I put it pertinently to you that there was no ‘blue movie’.You made it up.(…) You’ve done what all the other members of the Woman and Child Abuse Centre did: you tried to improve the case,” Metcalfe put it to Angula at the close of his cross-examination.”No, it’s not like that,” Angula replied.”I’ve just told this court what I saw with my own eyes.”The trial continues today.Teek is denying guilt on eight charges, including two counts of rape and two counts of abduction or kidnapping, and a range of alternative charges that include two counts of indecent assault and two counts of supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18.He is facing allegations that he had picked up two girls aged nine and ten in Katutura on the evening of Friday, January 28, last year, and that he took them to his home in the Brakwater area north of the city.On the way there and at his home, it is charged, he sexually fondled the younger girl.He is further accused of having showed the children a pornographic video at his house, where he allegedly also sexually fondled the younger girl again.In a plea explanation given to the court at the start of the trial on Monday, Teek stated that he had acted with only noble intentions when he picked up the two girls, who were complaining of not having eaten all day and of being hungry.His intention was to give them food at his house, and he did that and then returned them to Katutura the next morning, since they had fallen asleep at his house and spent the night sleeping there, he explained.Angula and a colleague from the Woman and Child Protection Unit, Constable Chrispa Gom-Khaiseb, were the first Police officers to visit Teek’s house after a complaint was registered with the Police.Both of them told the court that the children, accompanied by their mothers, directed them to the house.Only when they saw Teek and the children said he was the man that they claimed had picked them up in Katutura the night before, did they realise that a Judge was the suspect in the case, they related.According to the two officers, Teek invited them into the house and showed them around, explaining that the children had eaten there and then slept over.According to Angula, it was while they were walking through the house that he noticed the cover of a pornographic video lying on a table in a lounge.”I could see that it was people who were naked, and people having sexual intercourse, that it was a blue-movie cassette,” he said.Angula said because he and Gom-Khaiseb – who did not see the video cover – were junior Police officers and a Judge was involved in the case, he thought they could neither carry out any seizure of evidence nor arrest the Judge, so they left.Only late that afternoon did a Police team, led by a senior officer, Deputy Commissioner Marius Visser, return to Teek’s house to conduct a search.No pornographic material was discovered.”I put it pertinently to you that there was no ‘blue movie’.You made it up.(…) You’ve done what all the other members of the Woman and Child Abuse Centre did: you tried to improve the case,” Metcalfe put it to Angula at the close of his cross-examination.”No, it’s not like that,” Angula replied.”I’ve just told this court what I saw with my own eyes.”The trial continues today.