Angula to hear fate of bail appeal on 18 September
Staff Reporter JOEL Angula, a former protection officer at Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) (Pty) Ltd, is set to hear the fate of a bail appeal application lodged in the Windhoek High Court. Angula lodged the appeal in the High Court to set aside a decision by the lower Magistrate’s Court that denied him bail in ... The post Angula to hear fate of bail appeal on 18 September appeared first on Informanté .
JOEL Angula, a former protection officer at Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) (Pty) Ltd, is set to hear the fate of a bail appeal application lodged in the Windhoek High Court.
Angula lodged the appeal in the High Court to set aside a decision by the lower Magistrate’s Court that denied him bail in February 2025.
Angula was arrested in connection with the 18 January 2025 robbery, where 512 parcels of unpolished diamonds weighing 51 725 carats and valued at N$335 650 038.05 were unlawfully and intentionally stolen from Namdia.
He was found in possession of rough and uncut diamonds at his residence at Erf 6078 Groenkwart Street in Khomasdal, Windhoek, valued at N$4 783 476.15, which contained 13 parcels of unpolished diamonds.
Representing the state in the bail appeal, legal counsel Johannes Kalipi said that the unpolished diamonds found at Angula’s residence resemble those parcels that had been stolen from Namdia’s premises on 18 January 2025.
He added that a ground upon which Angula challenged the denial of bail is that the learned magistrate erred in law and/or misdirected herself when she found that the respondent had shown that it had a strong case against the appellant and that the learned magistrate failed to apply her mind and take into consideration and/or totally ignored that.
Kalipi said that, in respect of count 1, the state led evidence that the murder was committed by a certain Max Endjala after the robbery was completed, in which case the learned magistrate ought to consider that even if the trial court finds that the appellant acted in common purpose with Max Endjala, who committed the actual act, such court will not make a finding that Angula foresaw the possibility of Max killing Frans Eiseb after the police arrived on the scene and then committing suicide.
“It is respectfully submitted that as per the testimony of the investigating officer at page 190 that ‘we are in possession of the evidence that stated that this heist was planned, it was planned almost a year ago and Angula was part of the planning, meaning that even though he is trying to exclude himself from the murder, from the robbery with aggravating circumstances, and the mere fact that he was part and parcel of the planning stage, he qualifies him to be charged with a common purpose,’” Kalipi said.
He added that the state submitted that the court accepted the version of the investigating officer as reliable and more probable when weighed against the version of Angula.
“Furthermore, nothing has been pointed out by Angula from the record that would suggest that the evidence of the investigating officer was fabricated or unreliable. Furthermore, it does not matter whether this court agrees or disagrees with the reasoning of the lower court; all that this court has to ask itself is whether there indeed was evidence upon which the lower court could rely in making its finding,” Kalipi said.
Photo: File
