Justicia Shipena
A High Court review case in which the fishrot accused are challenging the Anti-Corruption Commission’s (ACC) investigations remains delayed.
This comes as the court is still waiting for a review record needed for the matter to move forward.
The delay has prevented respondents from filing their answering affidavits and has stalled further progress in the case.
The issue came before deputy judge president Hannelie Prinsloo during a status hearing on Tuesday, following a joint status report dated 16 December 2025.
In the report, the accused and several state institutions and private entities told the court that only some respondents had filed notices showing their intention to oppose the application.
The accused stated that they cannot proceed with the remaining procedural steps until they file and finalise the full review record.
The accused are former justice minister and attorney general Sacky Shanghala, James Hatuikulipi, Pius Mwatelulo, Otneel Shuudifonya, and several companies and trusts linked to them.
They face charges in the fishrot fraud, corruption and racketeering case.
The respondents include the ACC, the prosecutor general, senior government officials and magistrates, the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche and several of its partners, as well as other individuals and entities.
The accused are challenging the ACC’s investigations in the fishrot matter and the lawfulness of the steps that led to their prosecution.
They told the court that, although respondents are still within the allowed time to file answering affidavits, this cannot happen without the full review record. Without that record, the case cannot progress.
They said discussions took place on 12 December 2025 between Shanghala and the government attorney to clarify what must be included in the review record.
Respondents indicated that the record would be filed on or before 16 February 2026.
The accused told the court that if this does not happen, they will approach the court for directions to compel disclosure and set timelines.
The status report also raised the issue of a possible recusal. The accused noted that Prinsloo is part of a Supreme Court bench scheduled to hear a related appeal on 26 February 2026.
They said the arrangement may create a conflict of interest and indicated they may bring a formal recusal application if the judge does not step aside.
They also asked that the matter be heard by a full bench of the High Court.
However, correspondence attached to the status report shows that the Judge-President’s office previously said the request for a full bench was premature, as the review record had not yet been filed and the matter was not ready for hearing.
The court said the request could be reconsidered once the case is fully developed.
They argued that the case is complex and raises important constitutional and legal questions.
These include the interpretation of the Constitution, the powers of the prosecutor general, the role of the ACC, the legality of investigations under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), and the appointment of Deloitte & Touche under the Anti-Corruption Act.
They also pointed out that the criminal case has remained at the pre-trial stage for nearly six years and said the outcome of the review could have a major impact on the trial.
In November last year, Shanghala and three co-accused launched the High Court review seeking wide-ranging orders to set aside investigations conducted in the fishrot matter.
They are asking the court to stop the prosecutor general from continuing with their prosecution until the review is decided.
They also seek an interdict preventing the use of evidence gathered during the investigation, including evidence obtained through search warrants issued by magistrates in Windhoek and Gobabis and evidence obtained by Deloitte during its involvement.
The accused further want the court to declare that the ACC investigations were not conducted independently and impartially, as required by the Constitution, the Anti-Corruption Act and the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
They also challenge what they describe as prosecutor-guided investigations, arguing that this undermined the ACC’s independence.
