In the judgment, the Court reviewed nine cases to clarify the issue of duplication of convictions under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 29 of 2004 (POCA). In each of those cases, people had been convicted and sentenced for offences having the nature of theft (predicate offence), except for one where the predicate offence was receiving stolen property, and for contravening either section 4 (disguising unlawful origin of property) or section 6 (acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of unlawful activities) of POCA.

The first case (S v Amos Henock, HC Ref. No 630/2019), involving one defendant named Amos Henock, concerned housebreaking with intent to steal and theft of a mobile phone. The defendant sold the phone to a friend for NAD 1,000.

The second case (S v Hermanus Kandjoze & Albertus Kandjoze, HC Ref. No 935/2019), involving two defendants named Hermanus Kandjoze and Albertus Kandjoze, concerned the theft of goods which the defendants sold. The proceeds were used to purchase food.

The third case (S v Nobel Aoagub, HC Ref. No 1016/2019), involving one defendant named Nobel Aoagub, concerned the theft of a mobile phone which the defendant sold for NAD 230.

The fourth case (S v Alex Katjangua, Paul Abraham and Albertus Goeieman, HC Ref.No 1095/2019), involving three defendants named Alex Katjangua, Paul Abraham, and Albertus Goeieman, concerned the theft of nine sheep from the complainant’s farm. One of the stolen sheep was bartered to a passerby to obtain transportation.

The fifith case (S v Albertus Ortman, HC Ref. No 1134/2019), involving one defendant named Albertus Ortman, concerned the theft of one sheep. The defendant slaughtered the sheep, kept one half for himself and gave the other half to two other men for sale for NAD 400. The defendant never received the proceeds from the sale.

The sixth case (S v Kaarina Petrus, HC Ref. No 653/2019), involving one defendant named Kaarina Petrus, concerned the theft of case in the amount of NAD 50,679.35. The defendant used NAD 45,000 of the stolen money to settle personal debts, with the remainder spent on herself.

The seventh case (S v Dawid Musongo & Stanley May, HC Ref. No 1560/2019), involving two defendants named Dawid Musongo and Stanley May, concerned housebreaking and theft of goods with a value of NAD 6,529. The goods were sold and the proceeds used to purchase food and drinks.

The eigth case (S v Jonas Petrus, HC Ref. No: 1558/2019), involving one defendant named Jonas Petrus, concerned the theft of cash in the amount of NAD 4,739. The defendant gave some of the money to his girlfriend and kept the remainder for personal use.

The ninth case (S v Jaco Sass, HC Ref. No: 587/2019), involving one defendant named Jaco Sass, concerned housebreaking and theft of goods valued at NAD 9,100. The goods were later sold.

At the appeal stage, the High Court of Namibia Main Division looked at the definition of ‘serious crime’ as intended in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) to conclude that the severity of punishment according to the POCA implies the Namibian legislature had the intention of criminalizing the offence of money-laundering for serious predicate offences, as opposed to any type, or minor, offence. However, in the absence of legislation establishing which predicate offences are serious, prosecution under POCA lies within the discretion of the Prosecutor-General. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, guided by POCA provisions, and binding international agreements.

The judgment further clarified the application of POCA and held that the author of the predicate offence could equally commit money-laundering when he/she committed any further act in connection with property being the proceeds of unlawful activities. On the other hand, section 6 only applied to a person other than the author of the predicate offence. Also, since the elements of the offence created under section 6 were similar to the elements of theft, the Court held that convicting for both theft and the contravention of section 6 would amount to a duplication of convictions.

As a result, some of the convictions the Court considered were set aside while others were upheld.