know if someone is drunk, he evasively answered that drunkenness of people ‘the When asked if he could see that if the plaintiff was drunk he said he did not differs.’ notice it, which is improbable. When confronted with evidence of police officers about the state of drunkenness he said that it is very difficult for him to plaintiff’s answer and countered by asking an argumentative question, namely a person ‘If cannot do anything how can he be When it was put that he was handcuffed’? avoiding the question and for his friend he evasively did not see ‘covering’ stated, ‘I that he was To sum up, he never actually denied that the plaintiff was drunk. drunk.’ [89] He denied making a U-turn at Wika and that it is even possible to make a U-turn where he drove. The latter is improbable. [90] He stated that he saw the blue light of the police vehicle behind him. It was about 20 metres behind him when the siren sounded and he immediately pulled to the left and parked the Hyundai. He agreed that the police vehicle would have taken about 2-3 seconds to come to a standstill behind him. [91] When asked to explain why he and the plaintiff got out of the vehicle rather than wait for the police officers, he said that they were not sure if the police were behind them and if the police were indicating to them or to someone else. Yet he repeatedly stated in evidence that only they were there. He also said that he thought that the police vehicle was perhaps on its way to an emergency or that a convoy would be passing. All this evidence is improbable and rather indicates that he feigned not knowing the true reason for them being pulled over. Any emergency vehicles could easily have passed them without the need for pulling over. It is also unlikely that a convoy would be passing there at that time of the morning. [92] He said that the officer called a female officer to come and test the plaintiff because the latter was apparently drunk. When it was put that he knew why she was called he suddenly became evasive and said that he did not really understand what was said at the time. After several questions he conceded that he did know that there was another police officer on her way to test the plaintiff because one of the officers was Oshiwambo speaking. The implication is that this officer explained to them what was happening.
know if someone is drunk, he evasively answered that ‘the drunkenness of people differs.’ When asked if he could see that if the plaintiff was drunk he said he did not notice it, which is improbable. When confronted with evidence of police officers about the plaintiff’s state of drunkenness he said that it is very difficult for him to answer and countered by asking an argumentative question, namely ‘If a person cannot do anything how can he be handcuffed’? When it was put that he was avoiding the question and ‘covering’ for his friend he evasively stated, ‘I did not see that he was drunk.’ To sum up, he never actually denied that the plaintiff was drunk. [89] He denied making a U-turn at Wika and that it is even possible to make a U-turn where he drove. The latter is improbable. [90] He stated that he saw the blue light of the police vehicle behind him. It was about 20 metres behind him when the siren sounded and he immediately pulled to the left and parked the Hyundai. He agreed that the police vehicle would have taken about 2-3 seconds to come to a standstill behind him. [91] When asked to explain why he and the plaintiff got out of the vehicle rather than wait for the police officers, he said that they were not sure if the police were behind them and if the police were indicating to them or to someone else. Yet he repeatedly stated in evidence that only they were there. He also said that he thought that the police vehicle was perhaps on its way to an emergency or that a convoy would be passing. All this evidence is improbable and rather indicates that he feigned not knowing the true reason for them being pulled over. Any emergency vehicles could easily have passed them without the need for pulling over. It is also unlikely that a convoy would be passing there at that time of the morning. [92] He said that the officer called a female officer to come and test the plaintiff because the latter was apparently drunk. When it was put that he knew why she was called he suddenly became evasive and said that he did not really understand what was said at the time. After several questions he conceded that he did know that there was another police officer on her way to test the plaintiff because one of the officers was Oshiwambo speaking. The implication is that this officer explained to them what was happening.