Acquitted Noa files complaint against magistrate
Dennis Noa (31), who was initially convicted of rape but later acquitted on appeal, has filed an official complaint against magistrate Victor Nyazo, who presided over his trial and sentencing.
Noa, who was previously found guilty of raping an 18-year-old unconscious patient at Katutura State Hospital four years ago, has lodged complaints with the ombudsman, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Magistrates’ Commission of Namibia.
He accuses Nyazo of “gross judicial misconduct, misdirection, bias and failure to adhere to legal principles,” claiming that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated. Noa filed the complaint on 7 February.
He has urged the JSC to investigate Nyazo for misconduct and possible judicial incompetence. “I request that the magistrate be held accountable for these serious lapses, which led to a miscarriage of justice and the unjust loss of my freedom,” Noa argued.
State turns to Supreme Court
Meanwhile, the State, represented by prosecutor Magreth Tjombe, has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court following Noa’s acquittal in November 2024.
In its heads of argument, the State contends that the appeal court failed to properly consider the totality of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, which suggests an event occurred rather than proving it directly, was crucial to the case, according to the State.
However, High Court judges Herman January and Philanda Christiaan ruled that Noa’s conviction was not supported by credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They also criticised the magistrate for overlooking the State’s failure to present DNA and forensic swab results.
The State further argues that the court misdirected itself when it accepted the possibility of a fifth hospital porter being on duty on the day of the alleged incident.
Official records indicate that five porters were scheduled to work, but the State asserts that no one else corroborated the existence of this additional porter, apart from Noa.
Furthermore, Noa allegedly misidentified the fifth porter, mistakenly describing the uniform of a security guard.
Defence counters appeal
In response, Noa’s lawyer, Sisa Namandje, has urged the court to reject the State’s application. “This ground must fail because the State did not object to the authenticity of the register, and the official records clearly indicate that five porters were on duty that day,” Namandje argued.
He further contended that the State’s appeal does not sufficiently address whether the actus reus – specifically, the alleged penetration – was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on the State’s application for leave to appeal Noa’s acquittal on 27 February.
Noa, who was previously found guilty of raping an 18-year-old unconscious patient at Katutura State Hospital four years ago, has lodged complaints with the ombudsman, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Magistrates’ Commission of Namibia.
He accuses Nyazo of “gross judicial misconduct, misdirection, bias and failure to adhere to legal principles,” claiming that his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated. Noa filed the complaint on 7 February.
He has urged the JSC to investigate Nyazo for misconduct and possible judicial incompetence. “I request that the magistrate be held accountable for these serious lapses, which led to a miscarriage of justice and the unjust loss of my freedom,” Noa argued.
State turns to Supreme Court
Meanwhile, the State, represented by prosecutor Magreth Tjombe, has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court following Noa’s acquittal in November 2024.
In its heads of argument, the State contends that the appeal court failed to properly consider the totality of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, which suggests an event occurred rather than proving it directly, was crucial to the case, according to the State.
However, High Court judges Herman January and Philanda Christiaan ruled that Noa’s conviction was not supported by credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They also criticised the magistrate for overlooking the State’s failure to present DNA and forensic swab results.
The State further argues that the court misdirected itself when it accepted the possibility of a fifth hospital porter being on duty on the day of the alleged incident.
Official records indicate that five porters were scheduled to work, but the State asserts that no one else corroborated the existence of this additional porter, apart from Noa.
Furthermore, Noa allegedly misidentified the fifth porter, mistakenly describing the uniform of a security guard.
Defence counters appeal
In response, Noa’s lawyer, Sisa Namandje, has urged the court to reject the State’s application. “This ground must fail because the State did not object to the authenticity of the register, and the official records clearly indicate that five porters were on duty that day,” Namandje argued.
He further contended that the State’s appeal does not sufficiently address whether the actus reus – specifically, the alleged penetration – was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on the State’s application for leave to appeal Noa’s acquittal on 27 February.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article