african news article re mls

I did not sanction the visit to the Chief Justice: Adv Kasuto

PROMINENT legal practitioner Advocate Ephraim Kasuto has reacted strongly to media reports alleging that he recently sanctioned a clandestine nocturnal visit on behalf of a client to Chief Justice Peter Shivute.
The visit by two unnamed retired politicians to the Chief Justice was allegedly on behalf of one of his clients Malakia Amakutuwa.
In a strange twist of events Kasuto is reported to have filed a ?notice of irregularity? for a review of a Supreme Court judgement that overturned an earlier High Court ruling in his favour.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court judgement following an appeal by the Australian-based company Metals Australia and its Namibian subsidiary Metals Namibia.
The two companies have been locked in a fierce battle with Amakutuwa over two uranium EPLs estimated to be worth billions of Namibian dollars.
The Supreme Court judgement meant Amakutuwa has now lost his two uranium exploration licenses, which he insists is unfair.
Amakutuwa claims to have been duped into signing away the two licenses.
Last week, a local daily newspaper reported that Kasuto and his client Amakutuwa sanctioned a late night visit to Chief Justice Peter Shivute by two un-named retired politicians in attempt improperly influence a judge in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement.
The Namibian in its edition of 18 November reported that the two visitors implicated Kasuto, when they allegedly informed the Chief Justice at his home on November 9 that Kasuto and his client had sent them to talk to Justice Shivute.
Kasuto denied the accusation in an interview with the Windhoek Observer, saying the report was meant to tarnish his image.
Kasuto charged that the report was meant to put him in a bad light, by questioning his professional integrity.
?It is clear that the attack and accusations against me are unfounded and meant to mislead the public.?
?The decision to attack me is grossly unreasonable, lacking in good faith and prompted by improper considerations,? he said.
Kasuto confirmed having attended a meeting with Shivute over the alleged nocturnal visit, during which the Chief Justice apparently made it clear in no uncertain terms that that he would not allow anyone to lean on him.
Kasuto, Shivute and Elize Angula of the law firm that represents Metals Australia attended the meeting that took place on 11 November.
Kasuto said: ?The meeting took place in a very cordial atmosphere contrary to the newspaper article.
?In fact, the first thing the Chief Justice did was to take issue with the complaint that the friendly relations between Justice Kate O?Regan and Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett influenced the judgement in favour of the Australians.?
Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett represented the Australians, assisted by F. Pelser on the instructions of Lorentz Angula Inc.
Although he stopped short of pointing an accusing finger, Kasuto said it was unprofessional to run to the media.
?It was surprising to find out that the content of what was discussed during the meeting was made available to the media,? he said.
He also questioned the motive behind the newspaper article, asking why its author failed to solicit comments from the persons alleged to have visited Chief Justice Shivute, despite the fact that they provided a contact number.
Windhoek Observer understands that one of the retired politicians was none other than a former Mayor of Ondangwa.
Justice O?Regan, a South African national, wrote the judgement which overturned the High Court decision in favour of the Australians, with Judge of Appeal Gerhard Maritz and Acting Judge of Appeal Fred Chomba concurring.
Kasuto also defended his action to file a ?notice of irregularity? with the Chief Justice for a review of the Supreme Court judgement.
However, the ?notice of irregularity? has been described as ?perplexing? and an attempt to obstruct the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement.
Kasuto was adamant that raising the issue of irregularity was consistent with the provisions of Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act read with Article 81 of the Namibian Constitution.
Article 81 provides that, ?A decision of the Supreme Court shall be binding on all other courts of Namibia and all persons in Namibia, unless it is reversed by the Supreme Court itself or is contradicted by an Act of Parliament lawfully enacted?.
He added that, ?We brought the notice to the attention of Chief Justice in his capacity as head of the judiciary to alert him to the breaches of the litigant?s rights to a fair hearing.
?The content of notice of irregularity is self-explanatory?. He said it was wrong to accuse him of obstructing justice, because there have been similar cases where the Supreme Court of Namibia had revisited its own decisions.
The Court of Appeal revisited its judgements in cases such as ? Case No. SA 10/2006 (an application in which ERICA BEUKES and HEWAT BEUKES, the 1st and 2nd applicants respectively claimed relief against 6 respondents).
The other is Case No. SCA1, an application sui generis (first of this kind), in terms of Article 81 of the Namibian constitution in which the plaintiff asked for a rescission of Supreme Court judgement delivered on 26 October 2007.
Kasuto charged that, ?In these cases, there were no questions of such lawyers being accused of contempt of Court or obstructing justice?.
?In my view to say or to allege that I have committed contempt of Court or that I am guilty of obstructing justice is the biggest joke of the year,? he said.
Kasuto emphasised that he does not have any objection to Justice O?Regan writing the judgement, but it was the manner in which the court conducted the hearing.
Last year the late Justice John Manyarara in the High Court ruled that both agreements under which the licenses were purportedly sold were null and void.
However, the Australian outfit and its local subsidiary lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, which has now overturned the High Court ruling.
Kasuto and his client are adamant that the fact that the Supreme Court reversed the judgement without making references to the High Court judgement is a material issue.
Kasuto noted that, ?Because, it was an appeal, the Court of Appeal in its judgement should have attacked the High Court decision and give reasons as to why they differ with such judgement?.
Nonetheless, it has emerged that the Supreme Court instead made the judgement based on new information such as amendments brought to the Heads of Agreement that were never raised in the High Court judgement and which formed the basis for the appeal. ? [email protected]



? 2010 Windhoek Observer. All Rights Reserved.