Pio Teek goes on trial

THE Police’s investigation of child-molestation allegations against former Supreme Court Judge of Appeal Pio Teek was subjected to a battering from the defence as soon as Teek’s trial got under way in the High Court in Windhoek yesterday.

Teek’s trial began before Judge Ronnie Bosielo yesterday morning with the former Supreme Court Judge and High Court Judge President pleading not guilty on all eight charges that he is facing. These include two main counts of rape, two counts of abduction, alternatively kidnapping, two charges of “use of means to stupefy a female for unlawful carnal intercourse”, alternatively supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18, and two counts of committing or attempting to commit an immoral or indecent act with a child under the age of 16, alternatively indecent assault.All the charges are connected to an incident that is claimed to have started on the evening of January 28 last year and to have continued until the morning of the next day.According to the indictment that Teek (59) pleaded to yesterday, the State alleges that he picked up two girls, aged nine and ten, in his vehicle in Katutura.He drove with them to his home in the Brakwater area north of the city, and on the way sexually assaulted the nine-year-old by fondling, or trying to fondle, her private parts, it is charged.After they had arrived at his smallholding, he gave the two children beer to drink, it is alleged further.He then sat each of the girls on his lap, watched pornographic videos with them, and then instructed them to swim, which they did dressed only in their panties, it is claimed in the indictment.Thereafter he again sexually fondled the nine-year-old – an act that under the Combating of Rape Act would constitute rape, it is charged.In a written plea that the leader of Teek’s three-man defence team, Richard Metcalfe, read to Judge Bosielo at the start of the trial, Teek denies all the allegations, except for the claim that he transported the two children to his plot.This he did after he had found the girls, described in his statement as “dirty and thin looking”, in a street in the vicinity of the Single Quarters in Katutura at about 21h00, Teek said.The former judge claimed that he was in the area because he was looking for an employee whom he wanted to help him with work at his plot the next day.According to him, a group of about six children had approached his car – a Mercedes-Benz 240E – and admired it as he stopped the vehicle during his search for the worker.They asked him to take them for a ride.He first took a group of boys on a drive-around, and then did the same for the girls, he claimed.After he had dropped all of them off, some of the boys asked for money, he alleged.He said he gave them N$5, and gave N$1 to the girls, who then ran after his car as he drove off.When he stopped, thinking something was wrong and they wanted to attract his attention, one of the girls complained that the girls did not get as much as the boys and that the boys would not share the money.”She insisted that I must give them money because they are hungry and had not eaten all day,” he claimed.”I asked them what such small children were doing so late at night and where their parents were.The reply was that their mothers were in the Single Quarters and that their fathers were not at home and that their mothers always beat them.”I felt sorry for them and took pity on them as they were dirty and thin looking.I told them that I would take them to my home and give them food and bring them back and speak to their mothers.”With that, they drove to his house, where he gave the two girls meat to cook for themselves.The children also watched television and asked if they could swim, he claimed.He agreed that they could, he said.While they were swimming, he went to lie down on his bed and fell asleep.According to him, when he woke up around midnight, he found them sleeping on a sofa and they did not want to wake up, so he let them sleep on.The next morning, Teek said, he found the children in the entrance of his house.”I also saw that there were two empty beer bottles and two glasses on the table in the lounge.I smelled the glasses and got the odour of brandy.I confronted them about this,” he claimed.After that, he took the girls back to Katutura and dropped them off where they asked him to stop.”At no stage did I ever touch the girls or give them alcohol.I at all stages acted in a noble manner and merely had good intentions to assist the two hungry children.I had no intention whatsoever of depriving their custodians of custody of the children at all,” Teek claimed at the end of the plea explanation.DEFENCE ON THE ATTACKAs soon as Metcalfe got his turn to cross-examine the prosecution’s first witness in the trial, Detective Inspector Johanna Haraes, who was one of the investigators in the case, it became apparent that the defence was launching a two-pronged attack against the prosecution’s case.In the first half of this attack, Metcalfe indicated, the Police’s investigation would be laid into as having been tailored to make the case appear as bad for Teek as possible and to cast him in as bad a light as possible, while potentially favourable pieces of evidence for Teek were conveniently neglected and ignored in the investigation.Secondly, he charged, the two children’s versions of the events had been inconsistent right from the start – changes became apparent as soon as a first statement that each of them had made on January 29 last year was followed by a second statement the next day and then a pointing out at the scene at Teek’s house the day after that, he charged.Several times during her testimony Haraes told the court that she did not want to answer the lawyer’s questions.By the afternoon, Metcalfe got around to questioning Haraes about what she said a witness for the defence would tell the court.That witness was the father of the older girl, and he would tell the court that his daughter had told him that in fact nothing happened at Teek’s house and that Teek had only been kind to her and the other girl, Metcalfe said.The witness would also tell the court that he and his wife had approached the Police to inform them that they and their daughter did not want to continue with the charges against Teek, but their wishes were dismissed, he added.The father would further testify that his daughter allegedly approached him again as recently as yesterday morning to tell him that she did not want the case to continue, Metcalfe said.Haraes confirmed that the girl’s family had tried to put a stop to the case, and that the Police had decided to continue with the matter.This fact, too – another matter potentially favourable to Teek – was not recorded among the material collected in the Police’s docket on the case, Haraes added.The older girl’s mother was the second witness to testify for the State.Her daughter only told her that she and the other girl had sat on the lap of the man who had taken them home on the evening of January 28 last year, that the man instructed them to take a swim and also instructed them to open two beers, and that they had watched a video of women and men kissing at his house, she said.The woman confirmed Metcalfe’s claim that she and her husband had tried to have the charges withdrawn on behalf of their daughter.She further told the court that they were related to Teek, and that her husband and daughter had visited Teek at his house on several occasions before the alleged incident.In fact, what happened on the evening in question when Teek picked up two children who complained that they were hungry, and took them to give them food at his house, was actually an act of kindness in her culture, she agreed with one of the statements that Metcalfe put to her.The trial continues today.Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs is representing the State.These include two main counts of rape, two counts of abduction, alternatively kidnapping, two charges of “use of means to stupefy a female for unlawful carnal intercourse”, alternatively supplying liquor to a person under the age of 18, and two counts of committing or attempting to commit an immoral or indecent act with a child under the age of 16, alternatively indecent assault.All the charges are connected to an incident that is claimed to have started on the evening of January 28 last year and to have continued until the morning of the next day.According to the indictment that Teek (59) pleaded to yesterday, the State alleges that he picked up two girls, aged nine and ten, in his vehicle in Katutura.He drove with them to his home in the Brakwater area north of the city, and on the way sexually assaulted the nine-year-old by fondling, or trying to fondle, her private parts, it is charged.After they had arrived at his smallholding, he gave the two children beer to drink, it is alleged further.He then sat each of the girls on his lap, watched pornographic videos with them, and then instructed them to swim, which they did dressed only in their panties, it is claimed in the indictment.Thereafter he again sexually fondled the nine-year-old – an act that under the Combating of Rape Act would constitute rape, it is charged.In a written plea that the leader of Teek’s three-man defence team, Richard Metcalfe, read to Judge Bosielo at the start of the trial, Teek denies all the allegations, except for the claim that he transported the two children to his plot. This he did after he had found the girls, described in his statement as “dirty and thin looking”, in a street in the vicinity of the Single Quarters in Katutura at about 21h00, Teek said.The former judge claimed that he was in the area because he was looking for an employee whom he wanted to help him with work at his plot the next day.According to him, a group of about six children had approached his car – a Mercedes-Benz 240E – and admired it as he stopped the vehicle during his search for the worker.They asked him to take them for a ride.He first took a group of boys on a drive-around, and then did the same for the girls, he claimed.After he had dropped all of them off, some of the boys asked for money, he alleged.He said he gave them N$5, and gave N$1 to the girls, who then ran after his car as he drove off.When he stopped, thinking something was wrong and they wanted to attract his attention, one of the girls complained that the girls did not get as much as the boys and that the boys would not share the money.”She insisted that I must give them money because they are hungry and had not eaten all day,” he claimed.”I asked them what such small children were doing so late at night and where their parents were.The reply was that their mothers were in the Single Quarters and that their fathers were not at home and that their mothers always beat them.”I felt sorry for them and took pity on them as they were dirty and thin looking.I told them that I would take them to my home and give them food and bring them back and speak to their mothers.”With that, they drove to his house, where he gave the two girls meat to cook for themselves.The children also watched television and asked if they could swim, he claimed.He agreed that they could, he said.While they were swimming, he went to lie down on his bed and fell asleep.According to him, when he woke up around midnight, he found them sleeping on a sofa and they did not want to wake up, so he let them sleep on.The next morning, Teek said, he found the children in the entrance of his house.”I also saw that there were two empty beer bottles and two glasses on the table in the lounge.I smelled the glasses and got the odour of brandy.I confronted them about this,” he claimed.After that, he took the girls back to Katutura and dropped them off where they asked him to stop.”At no stage did I ever touch the girls or give them alcohol.I at all stages acted in a noble manner and merely had good intentions to assist the two hungry children.I had no intention whatsoever of depriving their custodians of custody of the children at all,” Teek claimed at the end of the plea explanation.DEFENCE ON THE ATTACK As soon as Metcalfe got his turn to cross-examine the prosecution’s first witness in the trial, Detective Inspector Johanna Haraes, who was one of the investigators in the case, it became apparent that the defence was launching a two-pronged attack against the prosecution’s case.In the first half of this attack, Metcalfe indicated, the Police’s investigation would be laid into as having been tailored to make the case appear as bad for Teek as possible and to cast him in as bad a light as possible, while potentially favourable pieces of evidence for Teek were conveniently neglected and ignored in the investigation.Secondly, he charged, the two children’s versions of the events had been inconsistent right from the start – changes became apparent as soon as a first statement that each of them had made on January 29 last year was followed by a second statement the next day and then a pointing out at the scene at Teek’s house the day after that, he charged.Several times during her testimony Haraes told the court that she did not want to answer the lawyer’s questions.By the afternoon, Metcalfe got around to questioning Haraes about what she said a witness for the defence would tell the court.That witness was the father of the older girl, and he would tell the court that his daughter had told him that in fact nothing happened at Teek’s house and that Teek had only been kind to her and the other girl, Metcalfe said.The witness would also tell the court that he and his wife had approached the Police to inform them that they and their daughter did not want to continue with the charges against Teek, but their wishes were dismissed, he added.The father would further testify that his daughter allegedly approached him again as recently as yesterday morning to tell him that she did not want the case to continue, Metcalfe said.Haraes confirmed that the girl’s family had tried to put a stop to the case, and that the Police had decided to continue with the matter.This fact, too – another matter potentially favourable to Teek – was not recorded among the material collected in the Police’s docket on the case, Haraes added.The older girl’s mother was the second witness to testify for the State.Her daughter only told her that she and the other girl had sat on the lap of the man who had taken them home on the evening of January 28 last year, that the man instructed them to take a swim and also instructed them to open two beers, and that they had watched a video of women and men kissing at his house, she said.The woman confirmed Metcalfe’s claim that she and her husband had tried to have the charges withdrawn on behalf of their daughter.She further told the court that they were related to Teek, and that her husband and daughter had visited Teek at his house on several occasions before the alleged incident.In fact, what happened on the evening in question when Teek picked up two children who complained that they were hungry, and took them to give them food at his house, was actually an act of kindness in her culture, she agreed with one of the statements that Metcalfe put to her.The trial continues today.Deputy Prosecutor General Heidi Jacobs is representing the State.