High Court: Judge Masuku Sentences Dirk Conradie in Corruption Case

Corruption is not an offence committed by mistake, but one carefully concocted and executed after studying the strengths, weaknesses and loopholes within a system that can be exploited for personal gain. This was the message driven home by High Court Judge Thomas Masuku when sentencing prominent lawyer Dirk Conradie and businesswoman Sara Damases. Masuku said corruption is a corrosive cancer that must be nipped in the bud because it diverts public resources into private pockets for personal aggrandisement. However, Masuku opted for substantial fines rather than direct imprisonment after considering the above and the legislative provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act on sentencing on said sentences. He ordered that counts 1 and 3 against Conradie be taken together for sentencing. He sentenced him to a fine of N$200 000 or five years' imprisonment. Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn Similarly, he sentenced Damases to a fine of N$60 000 or two years' imprisonment. Conradie and Damases faced charges contravening the Anti-Corruption Act for allegedly attempting to bribe Mark Bongers and his wife and business partner Kim Fields with a massive advertising contract from MTC, where Conradie was the board chairman. Conradie allegedly promised them the MTC advertising contract if they took Damases on board as a black economic empowerment (BEE) partner. Conradie allegedly sought to persuade board members not to award the contract in terms of the recommendation but to redirect the award in the way of DV8, whom he claimed during the meeting he did not know. Masuku furthermore found that Conradie's position as an officer of the court and his involvement on various boards in Namibia were relevant to the circumstances of the offence. As a legal practitioner, he was expected to uphold the law and was placed in a position of trust and confidence. Masuku found that Conradie had abused that position by using confidential information and his influence for the purported benefit of Damases. Although Conradie was not the ultimate beneficiary and did not personally receive financial advantage, the judge held that this did not make his conduct any less serious. He also found that Conradie's conduct was nepotistic, finding that he had deliberately used his position and knowledge, and had gone out of his way to assist Damases. Masuku took into consideration that Damases has been unemployed for a considerable period and depended on friends and family for financial support. However, he found that Damases was not merely an innocent bystander but was at the centre of the scheme and stood to be the ultimate beneficiary. The judge found that Damases had actively approached the other party after becoming aware of what was happening and had gone out of her way to pursue the benefit for herself. He took into consideration the personal circumstances of the accused that were placed through submission from their lawyers. Conradie submitted that there was an error on judgement on his part in attempting to facilitate the BEE status for Damases. He also submitted that, on close reflection, what he did was wrong. However, he did not personally receive any money or benefit from the offence, either directly or indirectly. He further submitted that he was not convicted in his professional capacity as a legal practitioner and that the offence was unrelated to his profession. Conradie also submitted that he suffered financial and emotional consequences from the lengthy court proceedings and had already fallen from grace because of being charged and convicted. Damases' lawyer also highlighted her personal circumstances, including that she is unemployed and a pensioner who survives on a limited monthly pension and assistance from relatives and friends. It was submitted on her behalf that, while the offence was serious, there was no element of greed in the case. Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox By submitting above, you agree to