Police partly to blame for suicide

A CASE in which the mother and former girlfriend of a murder suspect, who committed suicide in 2004, sued the Minister of Safety and Security over the incident, has returned to the High Court with a ruling that the Police can only be held partially liable for the suspect’s death.

Sam Nepunda shot and killed himself with his own pistol in an office at the Namibian Police’s Serious Crime Unit in Windhoek on January 29 2004. He was being interrogated in connection with the murder of his girlfriend, Mathilda Agnes Immanuel, in Windhoek four days earlier.She was found shot dead outside a house in Lister Street in Windhoek West.According to the Police, it was later established that Nepunda’s pistol had been used to kill her.PRIME SUSPECT With Nepunda having told a senior member of the Serious Crime Unit, Detective Inspector Michael Booysen, that the gun had been in his possession on the day of the murder, Nepunda soon turned into the prime suspect.He never stood trial, though.While still under questioning, Booysen left Nepunda waiting in a corridor at the Serious Crime Unit’s offices while he went to another office to make a phone call.He had left Nepunda’s Makarov pistol and ammunition in an unlocked cupboard in his office.Nepunda got into the office, took the gun, and killed himself.With that, it was case closed as far as the murder of Immanuel was concerned.Nepunda’s death however was the start of legal proceedings of another kind.His mother, Lusia Nepunda, and the mother of a son of Nepunda, Fransina Yoleni Shaanika, decided to sue the Ministry for the loss of support from Nepunda that they claimed to have suffered as a result of negligence on the part of the Police.Judge President Petrus Damaseb ruled against the claims in February last year, when he decided that there was such a lack of evidence on the circumstances of Nepunda’s death that it was not necessary for the Minister to respond to the evidence placed before him on behalf of Mrs Nepunda and Shaanika.After an appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged against the Judge President’s ruling, though, Government lawyers abandoned the judgement that had been given in the Minister’s favour, and the case returned to the High Court for a hearing to continue before Judge President Damaseb at the end of May.Last week, the Judge President again dismissed Mrs Nepunda’s claim.She had claimed that, as an old age pensioner, she was so poor and needy she depended on financial assistance from her late son.Judge President Damaseb noted, however, that according to evidence before him Mrs Nepunda’s husband, to whom she is married in community of property, owns 200 head of cattle and 40 goats and also receives a pension.The Judge President remarked that he accepted that Mrs Nepunda may on account of her son’s death now have less than she used to have, “but that does not make her necessarily indigent”.He ruled that Mrs Nepunda has as a result not made out a case that she is indigent and in need of support from her late son.ADMISSIONS With the return of the case to Judge President Damaseb at the end of May, the Minister’s lawyers admitted that Nepunda’s suicide resulted from negligence.Given this admission, it would not be a valid defence to the claim for loss of support to Nepunda’s son to argue that Nepunda had taken his own life because he realised he was going to prison for a long time, during which he would in any event not have been able to support his child, the Judge President stated.He remarked that he agreed with the argument from Legal Assistance Centre lawyer Lynita Conradie, who represented Mrs Nepunda and Shaanika, that the investigation of the murder case in which Nepunda was implicated had still been at a very early stage and that there had still been no direct evidence to link him to the killing.A reasonable Policeman in Booysen’s shoes would have taken reasonable steps to ensure that Nepunda would not take his own life in custody and would stand trial, so that, in the public interest, a court could determine his guilt or innocence, Judge President Damaseb said.He added, though, that a reasonable person in the shoes of Nepunda would also not have killed himself.He would have provided information to the Police to show that he was not responsible for the killing, or if he was guilty would have accepted full responsibility for his actions or provided some explanation to excuse his crime.In terms of this case, Nepunda “must carry a very substantial responsibility for his own death,” the Judge President stated.He decided to hold Nepunda 80 per cent responsible for killing himself, with the result that the Minister of Safety and Security is liable to compensate the mother of Nepunda’s son to the extent of 20 per cent of the damages resulting from a loss of support that she claims her son has suffered.Shaanika has sued the Minister for N$60 012 on her son’s behalf.It must still be decided, though, how much in damages her son actually would be entitled to.Deputy Government Attorney Nixon Marcus represented the Minister.He was being interrogated in connection with the murder of his girlfriend, Mathilda Agnes Immanuel, in Windhoek four days earlier.She was found shot dead outside a house in Lister Street in Windhoek West.According to the Police, it was later established that Nepunda’s pistol had been used to kill her. PRIME SUSPECT With Nepunda having told a senior member of the Serious Crime Unit, Detective Inspector Michael Booysen, that the gun had been in his possession on the day of the murder, Nepunda soon turned into the prime suspect.He never stood trial, though.While still under questioning, Booysen left Nepunda waiting in a corridor at the Serious Crime Unit’s offices while he went to another office to make a phone call.He had left Nepunda’s Makarov pistol and ammunition in an unlocked cupboard in his office.Nepunda got into the office, took the gun, and killed himself.With that, it was case closed as far as the murder of Immanuel was concerned.Nepunda’s death however was the start of legal proceedings of another kind.His mother, Lusia Nepunda, and the mother of a son of Nepunda, Fransina Yoleni Shaanika, decided to sue the Ministry for the loss of support from Nepunda that they claimed to have suffered as a result of negligence on the part of the Police.Judge President Petrus Damaseb ruled against the claims in February last year, when he decided that there was such a lack of evidence on the circumstances of Nepunda’s death that it was not necessary for the Minister to respond to the evidence placed before him on behalf of Mrs Nepunda and Shaanika.After an appeal to the Supreme Court was lodged against the Judge President’s ruling, though, Government lawyers abandoned the judgement that had been given in the Minister’s favour, and the case returned to the High Court for a hearing to continue before Judge President Damaseb at the end of May.Last week, the Judge President again dismissed Mrs Nepunda’s claim.She had claimed that, as an old age pensioner, she was so poor and needy she depended on financial assistance from her late son.Judge President Damaseb noted, however, that according to evidence before him Mrs Nepunda’s husband, to whom she is married in community of property, owns 200 head of cattle and 40 goats and also receives a pension.The Judge President remarked that he accepted that Mrs Nepunda may on account of her son’s death now have less than she used to have, “but that does not make her necessarily indigent”.He ruled that Mrs Nepunda has as a result not made out a case that she is indigent and in need of support from her late son.ADMISSIONS With the return of the case to Judge President Damaseb at the end of May, the Minister’s lawyers admitted that Nepunda’s suicide resulted from negligence.Given this admission, it would not be a valid defence to the claim for loss of support to Nepunda’s son to argue that Nepunda had taken his own life because he realised he was going to prison for a long time, during which he would in any event not have been able to support his child, the Judge President stated.He remarked that he agreed with the argument from Legal Assistance Centre lawyer Lynita Conradie, who represented Mrs Nepunda and Shaanika, that the investigation of the murder case in which Nepunda was implicated had still been at a very early stage and that there had still been no direct evidence to link him to the killing.A reasonable Policeman in Booysen’s shoes would have taken reasonable steps to ensure that Nepunda would not take his own life in custody and would stand trial, so that, in the public interest, a court could determine his guilt or innocence, Judge President Damaseb said.He added, though, that a reasonable person in the shoes of Nepunda would also not have killed himself.He would have provided information to the Police to show that he was not responsible for the killing, or if he was guilty would have accepted full responsibility for his actions or provided some explanation to excuse his crime.In terms of this case, Nepunda “must carry a very substantial responsibility for his own death,” the Judge President stated.He decided to hold Nepunda 80 per cent responsible for killing himself, with the result that the Minister of Safety and Security is liable to compensate the mother of Nepunda’s son to the extent of 20 per cent of the damages resulting from a loss of support that she claims her son has suffered.Shaanika has sued the Minister for N$60 012 on her son’s behalf.It must still be decided, though, how much in damages her son actually would be entitled to.Deputy Government Attorney Nixon Marcus represented the Minister.