Supreme Court overturns corruption acquittal

THE Supreme Court has reversed the discharge that former National Assembly Secretary, Nama Goabab, and a parliamentary official received on counts of corruption in the High Court in Windhoek, almost two years ago.

In a decision handed down on Wednesday last week, Chief Justice Peter Shivute and Judges of Appeal Gerhard Maritz and Sylvester Mainga upheld the State’s appeal against the discharge which Goabab and his co-accused, Abraham John George, received in the High Court on August 12 2010. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, and replaced it with an order in which their application for a discharge at the close of the State’s case in their trial was refused.The effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that Goabab (55) and George (51) will be placed on their defence on the main charges of corruption, on which they have pleaded not guilty, when their trial continues before Judge Marlene Tommasi on a date that must still be set.The Supreme Court’s reasons for its decision are to be handed down at a later stage, but the court is expected to provide important guidance on the interpretation of the section of the Anti-Corruption Act under which Goabab and George were charged.Goabab and George are accused of having illegally rented two vehicles at Government’s cost for Goabab’s private use during March and April 2007. The total cost of the vehicle rentals is alleged to have been N$23 552,20, of which N$18 497,20 was actually paid by the National Assembly.Goabab alone is also charged with a third count in connection with allegations that he had unlawfully used a Government vehicle on May 25 2007 while he was receiving a motor vehicle allowance as part of his salary.The two men pleaded not guilty to all charges at the start of their trial at the end of March 2010.They faced main charges of corruptly using their office or position for gratification, which is an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act, and alternative counts of fraud, theft and use of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent.Goabab and George were charged under the Anti-Corruption Act’s section 43(1), which states: ‘A public officer commits an offence who, directly or indirectly, corruptly uses his or her office or position in a public body to obtain any gratification, whether for the benefit of himself or herself or any other person.’In her ruling on the discharge application, Judge Tommasi, reasoned that that section of the Act had to be interpreted strictly. She reasoned that the prosecution needed to prove that gratification had been obtained from another person – that is, that the public officer who allowed himself to be corrupted had been corrupted by another person, who would be the corruptor.’The evidence adduced does not support the commission of the offence (under the Anti-Corruption Act) since there was no corruptor,’ the judge found.Deputy Prosecutor General Danie Small, representing the State, argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there was no indication in the Anti-Corruption Act that a second person had to be involved in the sort of offence that Goabab and George are charged with. On this score the ruling in the High Court was wrong, he argued.Small remarked that people tend to make the offence of corruption more complicated than it actually is.It is simply ‘the abuse of public power for private gain’, he argued.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.

The Namibian uses AI tools to assist with improved quality, accuracy and efficiency, while maintaining editorial oversight and journalistic integrity.