Koch’s fate now up to Supreme Court

THREE Acting Judges of Appeal of Namibia’s Supreme Court are now holding the fate of German fraud and tax evasion suspect Hans Juergen Koch in their hands.

Acting Judges of Appeal Johan Strydom, Fred Chomba and Petrus Damaseb reserved their judgement on Koch’s appeal against previous court findings that he can be extradited to Germany at the conclusion of a second day of hearing arguments in the Supreme Court on Saturday. The three Judges had heard a first day of arguments eight days before the hearing of Koch’s appeal – and also a cross-appeal by the State – was extended to continue on an unusual Saturday session of the court.German citizen Koch (57) has been in custody – first at Tsumeb, and for the last few years at the Grootfontein Prison – since October 14 2002, when he was arrested at La Rochelle, the hunting farm that he bought in the Tsumeb district in 1994.He was arrested twelve days after the German ambassador to Namibia had sent a request to Namibia’s Justice Minister to ask that Koch be extradited to Germany and that a German warrant for his arrest should in the meantime be executed.Since that arrest, Koch and his legal team have been mounting an all-out fight to question the legality of an extradition request that they argue has been fatally flawed from the start.Koch is wanted in Germany on 203 charges of fraud, involving the equivalent of some N$440 million, 12 counts of tax evasion, involving the equivalent of some N$24 million, and four charges of falsifying documents.It is alleged that Koch defrauded dozens of German local authorities through the dealings of a financing company that he ran in Germany from about 1987 to early March 2000.In the process, he allegedly also illegally diverted millions of Deutsche Mark into his own bank accounts, with the Ambassador claiming in his extradition request that between 1996 and 1999 alone Koch had already misappropriated the equivalent of some N$110 million for his own benefit from the financial dealings he had with German local authorities.Louis Botes, one of the members of Koch’s legal team, on Saturday continued with the critique of the extradition request and the subsequent extradition hearing that a Magistrate at Tsumeb conducted in 2003.Telling the Supreme Court that the German authorities’ case against Koch was in “a total mess”, he argued that there had been an utter failure in Koch’s case to adhere to Namibia’s Extradition Act’s requirement that it must be shown that there was sufficient evidence to justify that he be committed for trial for the alleged offences he is accused of.In Koch’s case, both the Tsumeb Magistrate who conducted the initial extradition hearing and High Court Judges Sylvester Mainga and Kato van Niekerk, who in July last year dismissed Koch’s first appeal against his extradition, failed to consider each of the charges against Koch to determine on which of those charges he could be extradited, and on which not, Botes argued.Previously, another of Koch’s lawyers, Rudi Cohrssen, argued that the legal requirements that the documents making up the extradition request have to comply with, have also not been met.He argued that documents have not been properly certified or authenticated as required by the law, and that where it was attempted to authenticate them, there had in turn been a failure to translate the German authentication into English, as is required by Namibian courts.The Extradition Act’s requirements must be strictly adhered to, otherwise it would make a mockery of the protections contained in that law, Botes told the court as he closed his argument.Botes and Cohrssen have however failed to show the Supreme Court where the High Court had gone wrong in its judgements on the matter, Deputy Prosecutor General Danie Small said when he addressed the court.Small devoted most of his argument to the cross-appeals that the State had in turn launched to the Supreme Court.The High Court should not have refused to accept the record of the proceedings of a bail application by Koch as part of the record of the initial High Court appeal, Small argued.Had this been done, he said, the record of evidence that was given by a German prosecutor during the bail application would have provided answers to a lot of the technical legal points raised by Koch’s legal team at a later stage, Small said.He also argued that Koch’s appeal should in the first place not have ended up in the Supreme Court would, as the Extradition Act – in his reading – only allowed an appeal to the High Court.The three Judges had heard a first day of arguments eight days before the hearing of Koch’s appeal – and also a cross-appeal by the State – was extended to continue on an unusual Saturday session of the court.German citizen Koch (57) has been in custody – first at Tsumeb, and for the last few years at the Grootfontein Prison – since October 14 2002, when he was arrested at La Rochelle, the hunting farm that he bought in the Tsumeb district in 1994.He was arrested twelve days after the German ambassador to Namibia had sent a request to Namibia’s Justice Minister to ask that Koch be extradited to Germany and that a German warrant for his arrest should in the meantime be executed.Since that arrest, Koch and his legal team have been mounting an all-out fight to question the legality of an extradition request that they argue has been fatally flawed from the start.Koch is wanted in Germany on 203 charges of fraud, involving the equivalent of some N$440 million, 12 counts of tax evasion, involving the equivalent of some N$24 million, and four charges of falsifying documents.It is alleged that Koch defrauded dozens of German local authorities through the dealings of a financing company that he ran in Germany from about 1987 to early March 2000.In the process, he allegedly also illegally diverted millions of Deutsche Mark into his own bank accounts, with the Ambassador claiming in his extradition request that between 1996 and 1999 alone Koch had already misappropriated the equivalent of some N$110 million for his own benefit from the financial dealings he had with German local authorities.Louis Botes, one of the members of Koch’s legal team, on Saturday continued with the critique of the extradition request and the subsequent extradition hearing that a Magistrate at Tsumeb conducted in 2003.Telling the Supreme Court that the German authorities’ case against Koch was in “a total mess”, he argued that there had been an utter failure in Koch’s case to adhere to Namibia’s Extradition Act’s requirement that it must be shown that there was sufficient evidence to justify that he be committed for trial for the alleged offences he is accused of.In Koch’s case, both the Tsumeb Magistrate who conducted the initial extradition hearing and High Court Judges Sylvester Mainga and Kato van Niekerk, who in July last year dismissed Koch’s first appeal against his extradition, failed to consider each of the charges against Koch to determine on which of those charges he could be extradited, and on which not, Botes argued.Previously, another of Koch’s lawyers, Rudi Cohrssen, argued that the legal requirements that the documents making up the extradition request have to comply with, have also not been met.He argued that documents have not been properly certified or authenticated as required by the law, and that where it was attempted to authenticate them, there had in turn been a failure to translate the German authentication into English, as is required by Namibian courts.The Extradition Act’s requirements must be strictly adhered to, otherwise it would make a mockery of the protections contained in that law, Botes told the court as he closed his argument.Botes and Cohrssen have however failed to show the Supreme Court where the High Court had gone wrong in its judgements on the matter, Deputy Prosecutor General Danie Small said when he addressed the court.Small devoted most of his argument to the cross-appeals that the State had in turn launched to the Supreme Court.The High Court should not have refused to accept the record of the proceedings of a bail application by Koch as part of the record of the initial High Court appeal, Small argued.Had this been done, he said, the record of evidence that was given by a German prosecutor during the bail application would have provided answers to a lot of the technical legal points raised by Koch’s legal team at a later stage, Small said.He also argued that Koch’s appeal should in the first place not have ended up in the Supreme Court would, as the Extradition Act – in his reading – only allowed an appeal to the High Court.