Van Wyk’s lawyer vows to file recusal application against current Fishrot judge

Home Uncategorized Van Wyk’s lawyer vows to file recusal application against current Fishrot judge
Van Wyk’s lawyer vows to file recusal application against current Fishrot judge

Staff Reporter

ADVOCATE Mbanga Siyomunji, representing Nigel van Wyk in the Fishrot trial, has pledged to file an application to recuse Acting Judge Moses Chinhengo from presiding over the trial.

Siyomunji made this promise, assuring that it would be done by the end of the day, following a back-and-forth debate between him and the judge regarding the interpretation of Van Wyk’s plea.

This debate arose because Judge Chinhengo entered Van Wyk’s plea to Charge 1, which is racketeering, as “not guilty,” despite Van Wyk’s lawyer asserting that his client wasn’t pleading “not guilty” but maintaining a neutral stance for the time being.


Van Wyk explained his reluctance to plea, citing an ongoing review application challenging several charges against him. Considering this explanation, Siyomunji argued that this stance should be considered neutral rather than a refusal to plea.

Van Wyk also clarified that some charges were made against him jointly with two co-accused — James Hatuikulipi and Sacky Shanghala — as he was their employee for two years. As Hatuikulipi and Shanghala hadn’t pleaded due to lack of legal representation, Van Wyk said he couldn’t plea to those charges until the other two have pleaded, as they were charged with common purpose.

Judge Chinhengo dismissed these arguments, insisting that a refusal to plea would be noted as a “not guilty” plea. This led to a tense exchange between him and Siyomunji, with the latter questioning the urgency of the trial and vowing to submit a recusal application before the day ended.

Prior to this, Siyomunji had raised concerns about the judge’s reluctance to consider a recusal notice from another Fishrot accused: Bernard Esau.
Esau, represented by Florian Beukes, who was once again absent due to medical reasons, pleaded not guilty to racketeering but stressed that it was under duress, citing irregularities in the indictment and discordance with the presiding judge.

Emphasizing that he is not representing Esau but merely speaking up as an officer of the law, Siyomunji informed the judge of Esau’s recusal notice, suggesting the trial be halted to address it. However, Judge Chinhengo requested the specific legal grounds for such action, which Siyomunji was unable to provide at that moment, resulting in the continuation of the court proceedings.

Judge Chinhengo also recorded Shanghala’s plea as “not guilty” after Shanghala highlighted his inability to plea due to lack of legal representation. This is a matter that Shanghala highlighted earlier this week when he argued that the judge’s insistence on proceeding with the trial without him being able to secure legal representation violates his right to a fair trial as set out in Article 12 of the Namibian Constitution.

James Hatuikulipi, Tamson Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo, and Gustavo Ricardo similarly refrained from pleading, which the judge recorded as “not guilty”. All aforementioned parties emphasized that the “not guilty” pleas must be seen as the court’s interpretation and not their own, as they are simply choosing not to plea at this stage of the trial.

source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.