Image: OneAfrica / Youtube
Opposition politician Bernadus Swartbooi wrongly suggests that delays in the corruption proceedings are due to state tactics
Bernadus Swartbooi, leader of the Landless People’s Movement (LPM) and an opposition parliamentarian, made the statements at a media briefing at the end of September 2025 in Windhoek.
The politician’s statements were widely covered by the news media (see here, here and here) at the start of October 2025 and attracted a lot of comment and engagement on social media in early October 2025.
The part of Swartbooi’s statements that attracted attention concerned his criticisms of the state’s handling of the Fishrot fisheries corruption pre-trial proceedings currently underway in the Namibian High Court. Swartbooi accused the state of delaying the start of the trial and he even suggested that this was due to the state’s case not being strong.
Swartbooi’s direct statements were:
“They must release these people because they seem to be arresting people left, right and centre without having conclusive, reasonable evidence that can lead to convictions. Why do you keep people in prison and the state cannot finalise their case, get a conviction and move on? Because they need the spectre to go on that they are fighting corruption.”
In some of the reporting it is pointed out by other sources, such as Namibia’s Prosecutor-General Martha Imalwa, that the delays in prosecuting the Fishrot case are not due to state actions, but rather because of repeated applications by the accused persons in the case for various legal matters to be ruled on before the trial actually starts.
Most of the Fishrot corruption accused have now been in detention for more than five years, and the actual trial has not yet started, but has been scheduled to start in November 2025.
So, what is actually happening and who is to blame for delaying the start of the trial for almost six years now?
OneAfrica videoclip in which Bernadus Swartbooi suggests that the state is responsible for delaying the start and finalising of the Fishrot trial.
The facts
Namibia Fact Check approached veteran court reporter of The Namibian newspaper, Werner Menges, to shed some light on the issue of delays to the start of the Fishrot trial.
In email correspondence in early October 2025, Menges noted:
“I am only going to deal with delays since the trial was scheduled to start in October 2023. What follows is the whole sequence of events that I could see from my notes. All of the delays over the past two years have been caused by (some of) the accused.”
Following are Menges’ notes on the delays to the start of the trial since October 2023:
- The trial was scheduled to start on 2 October 2023, before acting judge Moses Chinhengo. That did not happen, and the court was instead informed that several of the accused are not ready for the trial to start because their legal representation had not been sorted out.
- On 23 November 2023, Chinhengo directed that plea proceedings should commence on 5 December (2023).
- On 5 December 2023, Sacky Shanghala, supported by James Hatuikulipi, objected to the judge’s order that plea proceedings should start, and said he needed more time to adequately prepare for plea and trial. He also raised a question about the legality of Chinhengo’s appointment as an acting judge.
- Chinhengo directed that the state should start to put the charges to the accused.
- On 6 December 2023, Shanghala, who did not have legal representation, addressed the court at length on the need for legal representation. He also informed the court he wanted to bring an application in terms of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- On 8 December 2023, plea-taking continued.
- On 13 December 2023, defence lawyer Mbanga Siyomunji (representing Tamson Hatuikulipi and Nigel van Wyk) informed the judge he has filed a recusal application (on behalf of Nigel van Wyk).
- On 1 March 2024, Chinhengo heard oral arguments on the recusal application.
- On 12 March 2024, Chinhengo dismissed the recusal application.
- On 17 May 2024, Siyomunji applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against Chinhengo’s dismissal of the recusal application.
- On 24 May 2024, Chinhengo dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
- On 30 May 2024, Siyomunji informed the judge he had filed a petition to the chief justice, asking for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the recusal application. In the meantime, Shanghala has filed his application in terms of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- On 5 July 2024, the court was informed Van Wyk’s petition to the Supreme Court has been refused. This brought the recusal application to its final end.
- On 26 July 2024, oral arguments on the section 319 application of Shanghala, James Hatuiklulipi and Pius Mwatelulo – an application for questions of law to be recorded by the judge and referred to the Supreme Court to be decided – were heard by Chinhengo.
- On 8 August 2024, Chinhengo delivered his judgement on the section 319 application and dismissed the application.
- On 13 August 2024, Shanghala informed the court he wanted to appeal against the judgement on the section 319 application.
- On 16 August, Chinhengo dismissed motions filed by Shanghala after the delivery of the 8 August judgement.
- On 27 August 2024, Chinhengo ruled the plea proceedings should continue from 2 September.
- On 2 September 2024, Shanghala informed the judge he had filed a petition to the chief justice in respect of the questions of law he wanted to have reserved. Shanghala informed the court he was applying for a separation of trials.
- On 13 September 2024, the application by Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo, supported by Ricardo Gustavo, for a separation of trials was heard.
- On 26 November 2024: Chinhengo refused the application for a separation of trials.
- On 11 December 2024, Shanghala informed the court he, James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo wanted to raise pleas that the court lacked jurisdiction to try them. Plea proceedings then continue – for the first time since 8 December 2023.
- 12 December 2024: Shanghala, supported by James Hatuikulipi and Pius Mwatelulo, asked the judge to postpone the case until his challenge of the court’s jurisdiction had been decided. The state continued to put the charges to the accused.
- 13 December 2024: Plea-taking continued, and was concluded, with pleas of not guilty noted on all charges. The case was then postponed to 4 February 2025.
- 11 February 2025: Siyomunji informed the court that defence lawyers are engaged in other trials and are not available for the continuation of the trial. Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo and Ricardo Gustavo are still without legal representation.
- 25 February 2025: The case is postponed to 4 August for continuation of trial.
- 4 August 2025: The accused appeared before acting judge Marilize du Plessis, who had taken over from Chinhengo. The judge was informed that Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Mwatelulo have filed an application to ask that the state be ordered to disclose various further documents to them.
- 8 September 2025: Du Plessis delivered her judgement on the application for further documents to be disclosed to the accused.
- 7 October 2025: Du Plessis heard oral arguments on an application by Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi and Mwatelulo to be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against her judgement delivered on 8 September.
As noted by Werner Menges, the Fishrot trial was supposed to have started in October 2023, exactly two years ago at this point, but the delays brought about by some of the accused in the case are what have been preventing the case from being heard and finalised.
Bernadus Swartbooi’s blaming of the state for the delays in the Fishrot case are thus clearly false.