THE 11 men whose bid to dispute the legality of the pending second Caprivi high treason trial was dismissed by the High Court in October last year cannot at this stage pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court against that ruling, it was ruled in the High Court yesterday.
Barring any further efforts to approach the Supreme Court to have last year’s ruling against the attempt to question the High Court’s jurisdiction overturned, the second Caprivi high treason trial is now set to start before Acting Judge John Manyarara in the High Court in Windhoek on Monday. Acting Judge Manyarara ruled yesterday that as Namibian law stands at this time, 11 of the 12 men who are set to go on trial before him on charges that they had been involved in an attempt to secede the Caprivi Region from Namibia cannot at this stage of their trial appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling that he gave last year.In that decision, he dismissed the special pleas in which they had challenged the court’s jurisdiction over them.The 11 had claimed that they were abducted from Botswana in order to be brought to Namibia and to be arrested and prosecuted in connection with the high treason case.Those claims were rejected when Acting Judge Manyarara ruled late in October last year that the evidence before him showed conclusively that Namibia played no part in the Botswana authorities’ decision to deport the 11 from that country.Following that ruling, defence lawyers Nate Ndauendapo and Zagrys Grobler notified the court that they would ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.Deputy Prosecutor-General Danie Small however objected to that course of action, arguing that the law did not envisage that such a procedure could be followed – and yesterday Acting Judge Manyarara agreed with Small’s interpretation of the law.The Criminal Procedure Act states that an accused person convicted of any offence before the High Court may apply to his or her trial Judge for leave to appeal against the conviction, the Acting Judge recounted in his judgement yesterday.The effect of that part of the Act is that no appeal could be launched before a conviction, he said.In the case before him, he dismissed the special plea on jurisdiction after he found that there had been no collusion between the Namibian and Botswana authorities in the deportation of the 11 by Botswana, Acting Judge Manyarara added.The effect of this finding was that “the hands of the State were clean”, he added.He remarked that the case before him was a sequel to the first Caprivi high treason trial, in which a similar challenge to the High Court’s jurisdiction went on appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court at Grootfontein ruled in favour of the 13 accused persons who had brought that challenge.On appeal in the Supreme Court, that court overturned the earlier ruling, and he in turn followed that judgement from the Supreme Court when he dismissed the jurisdiction challenge that the eleven accused persons before him had raised, Acting Judge Manyarara continued.The facts in the case before him were indistinguishable from the facts that had been placed before the Supreme Court in the other treason case, he also stated, commenting: “I respectfully consider the possibility of the Supreme Court arriving at a different conclusion in the present matter to be so remote as to be safely disregarded.”To allow appeal procedures to go ahead at this stage of the trial would fly in the face of established legal principles that as a general rule do not allow intervening and piecemeal appeals that could prevent reaching speedy finality in criminal litigation, he stated.Acting Judge Manyarara ruled yesterday that as Namibian law stands at this time, 11 of the 12 men who are set to go on trial before him on charges that they had been involved in an attempt to secede the Caprivi Region from Namibia cannot at this stage of their trial appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling that he gave last year.In that decision, he dismissed the special pleas in which they had challenged the court’s jurisdiction over them.The 11 had claimed that they were abducted from Botswana in order to be brought to Namibia and to be arrested and prosecuted in connection with the high treason case.Those claims were rejected when Acting Judge Manyarara ruled late in October last year that the evidence before him showed conclusively that Namibia played no part in the Botswana authorities’ decision to deport the 11 from that country.Following that ruling, defence lawyers Nate Ndauendapo and Zagrys Grobler notified the court that they would ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.Deputy Prosecutor-General Danie Small however objected to that course of action, arguing that the law did not envisage that such a procedure could be followed – and yesterday Acting Judge Manyarara agreed with Small’s interpretation of the law.The Criminal Procedure Act states that an accused person convicted of any offence before the High Court may apply to his or her trial Judge for leave to appeal against the conviction, the Acting Judge recounted in his judgement yesterday.The effect of that part of the Act is that no appeal could be launched before a conviction, he said.In the case before him, he dismissed the special plea on jurisdiction after he found that there had been no collusion between the Namibian and Botswana authorities in the deportation of the 11 by Botswana, Acting Judge Manyarara added.The effect of this finding was that “the hands of the State were clean”, he added.He remarked that the case before him was a sequel to the first Caprivi high treason trial, in which a similar challenge to the High Court’s jurisdiction went on appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court at Grootfontein ruled in favour of the 13 accused persons who had brought that challenge.On appeal in the Supreme Court, that court overturned the earlier ruling, and he in turn followed that judgement from the Supreme Court when he dismissed the jurisdiction challenge that the eleven accused persons before him had raised, Acting Judge Manyarara continued.The facts in the case before him were indistinguishable from the facts that had been placed before the Supreme Court in the other treason case, he also stated, commenting: “I respectfully consider the possibility of the Supreme Court arriving at a different conclusion in the present matter to be so remote as to be safely disregarded.”To allow appeal procedures to go ahead at this stage of the trial would fly in the face of established legal principles that as a general rule do not allow intervening and piecemeal appeals that could prevent reaching speedy finality in criminal litigation, he stated.
Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for
only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!