Maren kan via video-oproep getuig

Die hooggeregshof het &#039;n hoërhofbeslissing verwerp wat sleutelbewyse in die siviele saak van Fishrot geblokkeer het en beslis dat Fishcor die getuienis van Maren de Klerk per video-oproep mag aanbied.De Klerk is &#039;n Namibiese regspraktisyn wat nou betrokke was by die visserysektor-transaksies wat later die kern van die Fishrot-skandaal geword het.De Klerk het as regsadviseur en direkteur vir African Selection Fishing en Seaflower Pelagic Processing opgetree.Hy was direk betrokke by die raadgewing oor en hulp met die strukturering van die ooreenkomste wat nou deur Fishcor betwis word.Nadat die Fishrot-korrupsieskandaal laat in 2019 gebreek het, het hy &#039;n gedetailleerde beëdigde verklaring aan die Teenkorrupsiekommissie van Namibië (ACC) afgelê waarin hy vergaderings en besprekings beskryf het waarby senior politici, Fishcor-leierskap en private visserybelange betrokke was.De Klerk het later Namibië verlaat en is tans in Suid-Afrika, waar &#039;n lasbrief vir sy inhegtenisneming uitgereik is in verband met die Fishrot-sake.In sy uitspraak op Woensdag het die hooggeregshof gesê die hoërhof was foutief om Fishcor toestemming te weier om De Klerk se getuienis op lang afstand te kry. Die regters het bevind dat die hoërhof te veel klem gelê het op De Klerk se status as &#039;n voortvlugtige en versuim het om volgens openbare belang en geregtigheid in die aanhoor van getuienis oor beweerde grootskaalse korrupsie in Namibië se visbedryf behoorlik op te weeg.Fishcor dagvaar African Selection Fishing en Seaflower Pelagic Processing saam met verskeie staatspartye om &#039;n reeks ooreenkomste tersyde te stel.Hierdie ooreenkomste, verbind aan die Fishrot-skandaal, het behels dat Fishcor daartoe verbind is om elke jaar ’n maasbankerkwota van 50 000 ton vir tot 15 jaar te lewer. Fishcor voer aan dat die transaksies in &#039;n korrupte omgewing gesluit is en ongeldig verklaar moet word.BELANGRIKE GETUIEVolgens Fishcor is De Klerk &#039;n belangrike getuie omdat hy direkte getuienis kan lewer oor hoe die ooreenkomste bedink en gesluit is.Ander sleutelfigure wat betrokke is, staan óf tereg op kriminele aanklagte óf het aangedui dat hulle nie bereid is om in die siviele saak te getuig nie, wat De Klerk as die enigste getuie laat wat eerstehandse bewyse van belangrike vergaderings en besluite kan lewer.Die hoërhof het aanvaar dat getuienis in beginsel per video-oproep gelewer kan word, al word dit nie uitdruklik in die hofreëls voorsien nie.Dié hof het egter die aansoek van die hand gewys en gesê dat De Klerk nie voldoende bewyse het dat sy vrees vir sy veiligheid indien hy na Namibië terugkeer, redelik was nie, en dat die toelating van &#039;n voortvlugtige om op lang afstand te getuig, die regspleging kan ondermyn.KOSTE VAN VIDEO-OPROEPDie hooggeregshof het nie saamgestem nie en gesê dat howe die inherente mag het om hul eie prosedures te reguleer en dat die gebruik van videotegnologie nou &#039;n normale en aanvaarde deel van moderne geregtigheid is.Die regters het beklemtoon dat de Klerk nie &#039;n party tot die saak is nie en nie by die uitkoms daarvan kan baat nie. Om hom te verhoed om te getuig, sou Fishcor se vermoë om sy saak aan te bied, ernstig verswak.Die hof het ook bevind dat die hoërhof die standaard te hoog gestel het deur van De Klerk te vereis om te bewys dat die Namibiese owerhede hom nie sou kon beskerm indien hy uitgelewer word nie.Gegewe die erns van die Fishrot-bewerings, die omvang van die beweerde korrupsie en die dreigemente wat de Klerk beweer teëgekom het, het die hooggeregshof gesê sy vrees kan nie bloot as onredelik van die hand gewys word nie.Die appèl is gehandhaaf, die hoërhof se uitspraak is tersyde gestel en Fishcor is toestemming gegee om De Klerk se getuienis per video-oproep te voer, onderhewig aan aanwysings van die verhoorregter. Fishcor sal die koste van die video-oproep betaal, terwyl African Selection Fishing en Seaflower gelas is om die regskoste van die appèl te betaal.– wonder@nmh-hub.com.na---The Supreme Court has overturned a High Court decision that blocked key evidence in the Fishrot civil case, ruling that Fishcor may present the testimony of Maren de Klerk by video link.De Klerk is a Namibian legal practitioner who was closely involved in the fishing sector deals that later became central to the Fishrot scandal. De Klerk acted as a legal adviser and director for African Selection Fishing and Seaflower Pelagic Processing. He was directly involved in advising on and helping structure the agreements now being challenged by Fishcor. After the scandal broke in late 2019, he gave a detailed affidavit to the Anti-Corruption Commission describing meetings and discussions involving senior politicians, Fishcor leadership and private fishing interests. He later left Namibia and is currently in South Africa, where a warrant has been issued for his arrest in connection with the criminal Fishrot cases.In its judgment delivered on 17 December 2025, the Supreme Court said the High Court was wrong to refuse Fishcor permission to lead de Klerk’s evidence remotely. The judges found that the High Court placed too much emphasis on de Klerk’s status as a fugitive and failed to properly weigh the interests of justice and the public interest in hearing evidence about alleged large-scale corruption in Namibia’s fishing industry.Undermining administrative justiceFishcor is suing African Selection Fishing and Seaflower Pelagic Processing, along with several state parties, to have a series of agreements set aside. These agreements, linked to the Fishrot scandal, involved Fishcor committing to supply 50 000 tonnes of horse mackerel quota each year for up to 15 years. Fishcor argues the deals were concluded in a corrupt environment and should be declared invalid.According to Fishcor, de Klerk is a crucial witness because he can give direct evidence about how the agreements were conceived and concluded. Other key figures involved are either facing criminal charges or have indicated they are unwilling to testify in the civil case, leaving de Klerk as the only witness able to provide first-hand evidence of key meetings and decisions.The High Court had accepted that evidence could, in principle, be given by video link even though this is not expressly provided for in the rules of court. However, it refused the application, saying de Klerk had not sufficiently shown that his fear for his safety if he returned to Namibia was reasonable, and that allowing a fugitive to testify remotely could undermine the administration of justice.Cost of video linkThe Supreme Court disagreed, saying courts have the inherent power to regulate their own procedures and that the use of video technology is now a normal and accepted part of modern justice. The judges stressed that de Klerk is not a party to the case and does not stand to benefit from its outcome. Preventing him from testifying would seriously weaken Fishcor’s ability to present its case.The court also found that the High Court set the bar too high by requiring de Klerk to prove that Namibian authorities would be unable to protect him if he were extradited. Given the seriousness of the Fishrot allegations, the scale of the alleged corruption and the threats de Klerk claims to have faced, the Supreme Court said his fear could not simply be dismissed as unreasonable.The appeal was upheld, the High Court ruling was set aside, and Fishcor was granted permission to lead de Klerk’s evidence by video link, subject to directions from the trial judge. Fishcor will pay the cost of the video link, while African Selection Fishing and Seaflower were ordered to pay the legal fees of the appeal.

Maren kan via video-oproep getuig

Kommentaar

Republikein 2025-12-19

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Maren kan via video-oproep getuig

Kommentaar

Republikein 2025-12-19

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry. ×

MELD AAN

Advertensie

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry.