Justicia Shipena
Former National Petroleum Corporation of Namibia (Namcor) managing director Immanuel Mulunga has asked the High Court to condone the late filing of his heads of argument in his bail appeal.
Mulunga explained that circumstances beyond his control caused the delay, which did not prejudice the State.
Mulunga recently filed a founding affidavit in the High Court, stating that he had to submit his heads of argument by 19 December 2025.
He explained that he only managed to file them on 31 December after receiving a court record running to 4 797 pages.
Mulunga states that on the deadline day, his legal practitioner received a call to arrange hearing dates and later attended a meeting with representatives of the state and other legal practitioners.
He says that although the court record was uploaded to the e-justice system on 23 December, his legal team could not access it at the time because the case number had not yet been provided.
The full record only became available for collection on 24 December and was collected by an intern the same day.
Mulunga claims that as soon as he received the notice of set-down, his lawyer promptly started draughting the arguments.
He argues that the delay was minimal, unintentional, and respected the court’s order.
He adds that the state was not harmed and that justice would be served by allowing the late filing.
This comes as earlier this month, the hearing of the Namcor bail appeal was postponed.
Mulunga and his co-accused are appealing a bail judgement by Magistrate Linus Samunzala.
Samunzala denied bail to Mulunga and her co-accused in September last year.
Samunzala said five of the six accused in the N$480 million Namcor corruption and fraud case gave false testimony during their bail hearings.
Beyond the condonation request, Mulunga sets out what he describes as strong prospects of success in his appeal.
He argues that the lower court misapplied section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Act by failing to conduct a proper statutory enquiry into whether his continued detention served the interests of justice.
He further claims that the court wrongly conflated public interest with public opinion and media reporting and failed to consider whether strict bail conditions could address any perceived risks.
Mulunga also points to what he describes as weaknesses in the state’s case, including the absence of evidence showing criminal intent, personal benefit, or gratification linked to him.
He states that independent valuations and feasibility assessments support the legality of the transactions under scrutiny, and he acted within his authorised monetary approval limits.
Regarding allegations linked to an Audi vehicle, Mulunga argues that the State failed to prove that the vehicle was acquired through unlawful proceeds or that he had knowledge of any criminal activity.
He also challenges adverse credibility findings made against him, saying material contradictions in the state’s evidence were ignored.
Mulunga further alleges bias by the court a quo, claiming it improperly characterised the matter as part of the “fuelrot” saga and drew adverse inferences against him while failing to do so with respect to the investigating officer.
Mulunga, together with his co-accused Peter and Malakia Elindi and former Namcor executives Jeniffer Hamukwaya, Olivia Dunaiski and Leo Nandago, is accused of defrauding Namcor and faces corruption-related charges.
