Former top Namibian judge, cleared on all sexual misdemeanor counts by the Supreme Court, now wants to sue

22 February 2019 · Carmel Rickard

AFTER one of the most lengthy and grueling trials in Namibian history, former Supreme Court judge Pio Teek has finally been acquitted on all counts of sexual misbehavior first laid against him in January 2005. This week’s Supreme Court decision clearing him completely pointed out examples of shoddy work in the case by police investigators and others, and warned that the “systemic failures” evident in the case brought the system of criminal justice into disrepute. It could result “in a travesty of justice”, said the judges. Though the criminal case has now come to an end, there is a strong likelihood that former Judge Teek will sue over the charges and the state’s handling of the matter.

Read the judgment here on NamibLII

AS was only proper, the final stage of former judge Pio Teek’s case was heard by three senior judges from outside Namibia. Two of the bench, Judges Bess Nkabinde and Yvonne Mokgoro are former members of SA’s highest court, and the third, Judge Maruping Dibotelo, retired as Botswana’s chief justice earlier this year.

It has been a long and difficult road for Judge Teek, 71, since he was first charged with a variety of sexual offences in January 2005. A member of Namibia’s Supreme Court, he took early retirement, aged 58, after he was suspended following his arrest.

That issue – the length of time it has taken to complete the trial and ensure justice was finally done – was one of the first to be mentioned by the Supreme Court bench. Judge Nkabinde, who wrote the decision with the unanimous agreement of her two colleagues, said, “The most disquieting feature of this case is the prolonged delay in bringing it to finality.” But while the delay was “regretted”, Judge Teek had not cross-appealed in the matter and so the question of whether his right to a speedy and fair trial was violated was not properly before the court.

“But even if we are not deciding this question, it needs to be stressed that the disposition of a criminal trial as reasonably expeditiously as possible is a hallmark of a civilized criminal justice system.” While Judge Teek had at least been on bail throughout, “one cannot discount a mental strain he has had to endure over almost 13 years”.

The case involved two young girls, T and Q, who claimed that the judge had taken them back to his home, given them food, plied them with alcohol and then raped and/or otherwise sexually interfered with them.

He said that the children told him they were hungry and that he had taken them to his home to give them food as he felt sorry for them. They then watched television, and though he had meant to take them back to their parents at that point, he fell asleep because of anti-histamine tablets he had taken along with some alcohol. He only returned them to their parents the following morning.

At the end of the state’s case, Judge Teek successfully applied to be discharged. The state however appealed against his discharge and the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, saying the trial had to go ahead. When the high court completed the hearing however it found him not guilty and acquitted him. That acquittal decision was in turn appealed at the Supreme Court, and this week’s decision was in response to the appeal.

Revisiting the evidence heard by the trial court, the appeal judges found many examples of where the two girls had contradicted each other. They had also contradicted themselves repeatedly. There was also no help from medical and forensic specialists because proper protocol was not followed, documents were tampered with, and investigations were delayed so that fingerprints could not be obtained, for example.

There were “many major shortcomings” in the state’s case both in relation to the evidence of the children and the medical reports, described by the three judges as “highly suspicious and unreliable”. The Supreme Court was further strongly critical of the way the police handled the medical examinations and approved the approach of the trial court in questioning the resulting evidence.

The judges devoted a separate section of the decision to consider and list some of a number of irregularities in the conduct of the investigation. They said these irregularities showed “how the sub-standard investigative process by the police may be destructive to the criminal justice system”. These problems included that police who handled the case “were selective in the investigative processes”. They did not follow standard procedures and the failings were “deplorable”, said the court. Other “unacceptable selective investigative shortcomings” included the fact that video recordings taken during the search and arrest were not presented to the court because it did not provide anything of use to convict Judge Teek.

The court unanimously dismissed the state’s appeal and confirmed the High Court’s acquittal of Judge Teek on all the charges he faced.

Commenting on the outcome in The Namibian, Judge Teek said justice had been done “at last”, saying that eventually he was a free man. He wanted to bring legal action as soon as possible against the state for the charges and the resulting prosecution.

Whether he does sue or not, the case is an alarming example of how things go wrong if proper procedures are not followed, evidence is not properly obtained and the court is presented with skewed evidence. When this is coupled with inexplicable delays, the trial of Judge Teek must be seen as a dark moment in Namibia’s prosecution – and legal – history.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.