Objection sidetracks treason appeal bid

THE 12 men charged in the second Caprivi high treason trial face a wait that could take a month before they will hear if eleven of them have managed to pass a first obstacle in the way of a bid to take an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The 12 made their latest court appearance before Acting Judge John Manyarara on Friday, two and a half months after the Acting Judge had dismissed special pleas in which 11 of them claimed that the High Court had no jurisdiction to try them. The 11 claimed they were illegally before the High Court because, they said, they had been abducted from Botswana in order to be arrested, charged and put on trial for high treason and other charges in Namibia.Friday’s appearance was supposed to be for the hearing of legal arguments on an application by the eleven for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against Acting Judge Manyarara’s dismissal of their special pleas.The merits of their application did not get addressed on Friday, though, with proceedings instead devoted to arguments over whether they are legally able to appeal against Acting Judge Manyarara’s ruling at this stage.Deputy Prosecutor General Danie Small asked the Acting Judge to strike the 11’s application for leave to appeal from the court roll – a ruling that would nip their appeal bid in the bud.Small argued that the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow the 11 to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal at this stage of the trial.The Act states that an accused person can appeal to the Supreme Court only after he or she had been convicted in a lower court, Small argued.To allow them to pursue an appeal now would lead to a piecemeal adjudication of the case, which should be avoided, according to Small.It would, however, be “grossly unfair” to require the eleven to wait until they have been convicted and sentenced before they could appeal against the ruling that the court had the jurisdiction to try them, defence lawyer Nate Ndauendapo, who is representing ten of the eleven suspects, argued in response to Small’s objection.It would serve no purpose to require them to sit through a trial at this stage if the Supreme Court might later on find that the High Court had been wrong right at the beginning of their trial, Ndauendapo told the court.Fellow defence counsel Zagrys Grobler, who is representing one of the 11, also argued that the Supreme Court had to be given a chance to decide whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the eleven before their actual trial continued.Having heard arguments, Acting Judge Manyarara said he would need three to four weeks to consider the arguments and come to a decision.He reserved his judgement.The 11 claimed they were illegally before the High Court because, they said, they had been abducted from Botswana in order to be arrested, charged and put on trial for high treason and other charges in Namibia.Friday’s appearance was supposed to be for the hearing of legal arguments on an application by the eleven for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against Acting Judge Manyarara’s dismissal of their special pleas.The merits of their application did not get addressed on Friday, though, with proceedings instead devoted to arguments over whether they are legally able to appeal against Acting Judge Manyarara’s ruling at this stage.Deputy Prosecutor General Danie Small asked the Acting Judge to strike the 11’s application for leave to appeal from the court roll – a ruling that would nip their appeal bid in the bud.Small argued that the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow the 11 to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal at this stage of the trial.The Act states that an accused person can appeal to the Supreme Court only after he or she had been convicted in a lower court, Small argued.To allow them to pursue an appeal now would lead to a piecemeal adjudication of the case, which should be avoided, according to Small.It would, however, be “grossly unfair” to require the eleven to wait until they have been convicted and sentenced before they could appeal against the ruling that the court had the jurisdiction to try them, defence lawyer Nate Ndauendapo, who is representing ten of the eleven suspects, argued in response to Small’s objection.It would serve no purpose to require them to sit through a trial at this stage if the Supreme Court might later on find that the High Court had been wrong right at the beginning of their trial, Ndauendapo told the court.Fellow defence counsel Zagrys Grobler, who is representing one of the 11, also argued that the Supreme Court had to be given a chance to decide whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the eleven before their actual trial continued.Having heard arguments, Acting Judge Manyarara said he would need three to four weeks to consider the arguments and come to a decision.He reserved his judgement.