Judgment in Pio Teek Appeal Reserved

Three acting judges of the Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment in the appeal of former judge Pio Marapi Teek against a decision of the High Court in December 2012.

In the 2012 judgment Acting Judge of the High Court, Nicolaas Ndou upheld an exception raised by the respondents – the President of Namibia as the first respondent, the Government of Namibia as the second respondent, the Minister of Justice as the third respondent and the Attorney General as the fourth respondent.

In the judgment Judge Ndou said the High Court had no jurisdiction to order an amendment to an Act of Parliament. Teek wanted the Supreme Court to remit the matter to the High Court.

He said he has a constitutional right to be afforded recourse for a local judgment in a foreign country. Retired Judge Teek wants to sue the three South African Judges of Appeal that decided in favour of the State after he was initially acquitted on charges of child abduction, rape and other charges.

The former judge initially spent almost eight and a half months after he was arrested fighting the charges. He was eventually acquitted, recharged and again acquitted.

He now wants to sue the judges that ordered that he be recharged in a Namibian Court and wants the government to foot the bill for the enforcement of the judgment in South Africa where the judges are from. The judges that wrote the appeal judgment against him were Judges Piet Streicher, Kenneth Mthiyane and Fritz Brand.

He claims they failed in their constitutional and legal duties and trampled on his fundamental rights. He said that they simply relied on the prosecution’s written arguments and did not bother to read the record of his trial.

Teek claims that he suffered a total loss of N$6.8 million in earnings, damages, legal fees and future earnings.

Teek who represented himself in the Supreme Court told Acting Justices of Appeal Justice Sandile Ngcobo, Lady Justice Vernanda Ziyambi and Justice Paddington Garwe he wants the Supreme Court to refer the case back to the High Court to determine whether or not the State has a constitutional obligation to provide him with the necessary logistical and financial support to enforce a decision of a local court in a foreign country.

According to the former judge it will not only benefit him, but other Namibian citizens with similar claims as well.

Dixon Marcus on behalf of the respondents told the justices that Teek’s action was premature as he put the cart in front of the horse.

He said Teek should first see if he gets a judgment in his favour and then bring such an application to court.

Source : New Era