Court odyssey of gemship killing ends with civil claim withdrawal

THE withdrawal of a damages claim that was made against De Beers Marine Namibia over the violent death of one of its employees, last week laid to rest the second High Court case to have flowed out of a double killing that took place on one of the company’s diamond mining ships almost six years ago.

In the High Court last week, Judge Sylvester Mainga was scheduled to preside at the hearing of a damages claim that Okahandja resident Evenise Elka Gamatham had lodged against De Beers Marine Namibia and a former employee of the company, Daniel Paulus, who is now serving a 25-year prison term for murder and defeating or obstructing the course of justice. However, instead of the hearing getting off the ground, the Judge ordered the matter to be removed from the court’s roll of cases, since the court had been informed that Gamatham had withdrawn the legal action against the company and Paulus.With the withdrawal, litigation that had been pending in the High Court for the past three years, and that had followed on a previous criminal trial in the same court over the same incident, was laid to rest.A legal source indicated on Friday that the civil case against De Beers Marine Namibia and Paulus was withdrawn because Gamatham could not afford financially to continue with the litigation.She had sued the company and Paulus for N$788 360 over the death of her husband, George Gamatham (30), on board one of the company’s ships, MV Debmar Pacific, some 18 nautical miles off the Namibian coast near Oranjemund in the early morning hours of June 30 1998.George Gamatham was one of two people that died on that ship that night.The other was Alan Burls, a 32-year-old security officer, who vanished from the vessel that evening.His corpse was recovered from the sea about two weeks later.After the incident, Paulus was prosecuted on charges that included two counts of murder.He was eventually convicted of the murder of Burls, but acquitted on the charge that he had murdered Gamatham.Judge Annel Silungwe found that Paulus and Gamatham had acted with a common purpose when Gamatham – according to the version of events that Paulus placed before the court – shot Burls as part of a plan by him and Paulus to steal diamonds off the ship.Paulus also told the court during his trial that after Burls had been killed, Gamatham was shot accidentally when Gamatham and he, Paulus, got involved in a scuffle for control of the firearm with which Burls was shot.Paulus claimed that he helped Gamatham to throw Burls’s body into the ocean, and that after Gamatham had himself also been shot, he also tried to throw Gamatham into the sea.Gamatham’s body however got stuck on a piece of equipment on board the ship, and was discovered the next morning.Mrs Gamatham based her damages suit against De Beers Marine Namibia on claims that the company had been under a duty to her husband to provide him with a safe workplace, and that as part of this duty it had to enforce security measures to prevent anyone from taking firearms on board the company’s ships.It also had to ensure the safety of its employees by not employing persons with a violent criminal record, she claimed further.After the incident had happened, it was discovered that Paulus had been convicted of crimes twice before – once on a charge of assault, and once of rape.The company’s reply to Mrs Gamatham’s claims was to admit that it owed a duty to George Gamatham to take reasonable steps to provide him with a safe workplace and to ensure that his life and health would not be exposed to unnecessary dangers.However, the company added in its plea in response to the claim against it, Gamatham had himself unlawfully brought the weapon with which he was shot onto the MV Debmar Pacific for the purpose of committing a crime – stealing diamonds from the company.He was fully aware of the risks involved in carrying out such a criminal activity, including the risks of being shot, either with his own weapon or otherwise, the company counter-claimed.The company appeared to base its response to Mrs Gamatham’s allegations squarely on the version of events that Paulus had offered during his trial.He was the only surviving eyewitness of the events that claimed the lives of Burls and Gamatham.The firearm with which they were killed was never recovered.Paulus claimed he had thrown it into the sea.Mrs Gamatham, claiming that she and her late husband’s seven-year-old child are indigent, had sued De Beers Marine Namibia for their loss of support from their husband and father.However, instead of the hearing getting off the ground, the Judge ordered the matter to be removed from the court’s roll of cases, since the court had been informed that Gamatham had withdrawn the legal action against the company and Paulus.With the withdrawal, litigation that had been pending in the High Court for the past three years, and that had followed on a previous criminal trial in the same court over the same incident, was laid to rest.A legal source indicated on Friday that the civil case against De Beers Marine Namibia and Paulus was withdrawn because Gamatham could not afford financially to continue with the litigation.She had sued the company and Paulus for N$788 360 over the death of her husband, George Gamatham (30), on board one of the company’s ships, MV Debmar Pacific, some 18 nautical miles off the Namibian coast near Oranjemund in the early morning hours of June 30 1998.George Gamatham was one of two people that died on that ship that night.The other was Alan Burls, a 32-year-old security officer, who vanished from the vessel that evening.His corpse was recovered from the sea about two weeks later.After the incident, Paulus was prosecuted on charges that included two counts of murder.He was eventually convicted of the murder of Burls, but acquitted on the charge that he had murdered Gamatham.Judge Annel Silungwe found that Paulus and Gamatham had acted with a common purpose when Gamatham – according to the version of events that Paulus placed before the court – shot Burls as part of a plan by him and Paulus to steal diamonds off the ship.Paulus also told the court during his trial that after Burls had been killed, Gamatham was shot accidentally when Gamatham and he, Paulus, got involved in a scuffle for control of the firearm with which Burls was shot.Paulus claimed that he helped Gamatham to throw Burls’s body into the ocean, and that after Gamatham had himself also been shot, he also tried to throw Gamatham into the sea.Gamatham’s body however got stuck on a piece of equipment on board the ship, and was discovered the next morning.Mrs Gamatham based her damages suit against De Beers Marine Namibia on claims that the company had been under a duty to her husband to provide him with a safe workplace, and that as part of this duty it had to enforce security measures to prevent anyone from taking firearms on board the company’s ships.It also had to ensure the safety of its employees by not employing persons with a violent criminal record, she claimed further.After the incident had happened, it was discovered that Paulus had been convicted of crimes twice before – once on a charge of assault, and once of rape.The company’s reply to Mrs Gamatham’s claims was to admit that it owed a duty to George Gamatham to take reasonable steps to provide him with a safe workplace and to ensure that his life and health would not be exposed to unnecessary dangers.However, the company added in its plea in response to the claim against it, Gamatham had himself unlawfully brought the weapon with which he was shot onto the MV Debmar Pacific for the purpose of committing a crime – stealing diamonds from the company.He was fully aware of the risks involved in carrying out such a criminal activity, including the risks of being shot, either with his own weapon or otherwise, the company counter-claimed.The company appeared to base its response to Mrs Gamatham’s allegations squarely on the version of events that Paulus had offered during his trial.He was the only surviving eyewitness of the events that claimed the lives of Burls and Gamatham.The firearm with which they were killed was never recovered.Paulus claimed he had thrown it into the sea.Mrs Gamatham, claiming that she and her late husband’s seven-year-old child are indigent, had sued De Beers Marine Namibia for their loss of support from their husband and father.