The terrorism-accused Jona Hangula has urged the High Court to hear the evidence of a State witness, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent, in open court rather than behind closed doors.
The request was made in an application opposing the State's application that seeks to allow the FBI agent to testify anonymously or in camera (behind closed doors).
Hangula further seeks an order from the court for the State's in camera application to be dismissed.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
An order against the State's request that the alleged FBI agent be allowed to testify remotely via Zoom or Teams, or any other platform of a similar nature, without a video.
The accused wants "his legal team, friends, wife and church members who wish to attend the proceedings during the alleged FBI agent's testimony allowed to attend the proceedings and bear witness to the testimony of such alleged FBI agent."
In an affidavit seen by this paper, Hangula contends that a person cannot be called to testify as a witness when such a person has not furnished a witness statement.
According to Hangula, he has not been disclosed any witness statement from an alleged FBI special agent.
Therefore, he can only conclude that there is no such witness.
He argues that he will not receive a fair trial if such a person, without a witness statement, testifies in that capacity.
"On this basis alone, the in-camera application should fail because no witness statement of any FBI agent has been disclosed to either my legal counsel or me on record," he said.
One of the grounds for opposing the application is that since the matter is the first prosecution of its kind in Namibia, there is a need for greater judicial transparency.
Additionally, it is precisely because the case is unprecedented that the Namibian public, the criminal justice system, the Judiciary, the legal profession and the international community have a legitimate interest in observing how the state lays out its case against Namibia's first terrorist accused in open court.
He added that we must observe how the court "applies the law impartially so as to ensure that the proceedings withstand scrutiny and that public confidence in the fairness and even-handedness of the process is established from the outset."
"Secrecy at the very inception of this line of jurisprudence in Namibia would, with respect, achieve the opposite result," he added.
Hangula contends that the protection of the FBI special agent, even if warranted, does not require him or her to be physically present in Namibia.
He further says that he is not interested in seeing the face of the alleged witness and concedes that he or she's identity should be shielded from the public.
However, Hangula wants the voice of the alleged FBI special agent witness to be heard in public. He states that the witness' voice should be disclosed to the public in real time as this witness is giving evidence-in-chief when he or she is being cross-examined.
There are other, less restrictive measures available to the State, he argues.
For instance, testimony via a secure audiovisual link, and there is no reason why the witness could not testify from a secure location in the United States.
The image and voice of the alleged witness, to protect the identity, could be altered and distorted, while the evidence and the demeanour of the witness, to the extent visible, remain available to the court and the public. Hangula seeks for his legal representative to be afforded a live, real-time, unedited audio or visual feed with the ability to pose questions directly to the witness as the evidence is given.
He further argued that, given some of the mentioned alternatives to the state, the physical presence of the alleged witness in Namibia is neither necessary nor proportionate.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
There is no evidence placed before the court that the witness is placed under witness protection or is a protected person as required by statutory prerequisites for that witness to be required to be heard completely behind closed doors, he further argues.
He further argues that the witness does not satisfy the necessity in terms of being a complainant in either a sexual offence matter or evidence concerning a minor.
Hangula faces over 20 charges, including high treason, terrorism, funding terrorist activities, and two counts of recruiting persons as members of organisations designated as terrorist entities or to participate in terrorist activities.
He also faces charges of membership of an organisation involved in terrorist or proliferation activities and employing those who were in Namibia in contravention of the Immigration Control Act.
The matter was postponed to 22 July 2026.
