Fishrot accused ‘Fitty’ tries for bail appeal

One of the alleged key figures in the Fishrot fishing quotas fraud and corruption case, businessman Tamson ‘Fitty’ Hatuikulipi, is due to hear before the end of this month if he will be allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court judgement in which his second application to be granted bail was turned down in December last year.

Judge David Munsu postponed the delivery of his decision on an application by Hatuikulipi for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to 26 April, after hearing oral arguments on the matter in the Windhoek High Court yesterday.

Munsu dismissed Hatuikulipi’s application for bail, based on new facts, on 27 December last year.

In his bail ruling, Munsu concluded that the state has shown it has a strong case against Hatuikulipi, who is facing charges including counts of fraud, bribery, racketeering and money laundering.

The charges are based on his alleged involvement in a scheme to divert income realised from fishing quotas supposedly allocated for “governmental objectives” to himself and co-accused in the Fishrot case.

Munsu noted that the fact that someone has spent three years in custody before their trial does not automatically entitle them to bail.

Hatuikulipi (42), who is a son-in-law of former minister of fisheries and marine resources Bernhard Esau, has been held in custody since his arrest near the end of November 2019.

Munsu added in his ruling that a court must strike a balance between protecting the liberty of accused persons, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the interests of the proper administration of justice.

The seriousness of charges faced by an accused and the strength of the state’s case are pertinent facts to be considered by a court in that regard, he said.

He also stated that alleged violent crimes and serious monetary offences, such as those involving the theft of public funds, could no longer be differentiated in bail applications.

Defence lawyer Florian Beukes argued yesterday that Munsu failed to properly consider Hatuikulipi’s personal circumstances and their deterioration during the time he has been in jail, and made an error by not finding that the length of his pretrial incarceration and the expectation of a protracted trial are new facts that change the facts on which Hatuikulipi was previously refused bail.

Hatuikulipi has reasonable prospects of success with an appeal to the Supreme Court, Beukes argued.

State advocate Hesekiel Iipinge argued that Hatuikulipi does not have reasonable prospects of success with an appeal.

He said Hatuikulipi failed to show the court he is a good candidate to be granted bail, and it has also not been shown that the judge exercised his discretion wrongly when he dismissed Hatuikulipi’s application for bail.