Okahandja: Armand Schultz, one of the suspects in a N.dollars 52 million cannabis case linked to an alleged plantation in the Hochfeld area near Okahandja, is challenging a magistrate's decision to deny him bail in the Windhoek High Court. Schultz was arrested following the discovery of an alleged cannabis cultivation operation at Farm Eendrag in the Okahandja District last year.

According to Namibia Press Agency, the operation was uncovered after co-accused Johannes Kamati was allegedly found transporting harvested cannabis, leading investigators to the plantation. The State argued before Judges Eileen Rakow and Claudia Claasen on Tuesday that Schultz was employed as the farm manager and was responsible for managing the farm where cannabis, a prohibited dependence-producing substance, was allegedly being cultivated.

Schultz was denied bail in March 2026, with the lower court finding that the State had a strong case against him and that, if convicted, he could face a lengthy prison sentence. The court further held that this could provide an incentive for him to evade trial if released. The magistrate also found that granting bail would not be in the interests of the public or the administration of justice and concluded that Schultz had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a suitable candidate for release.

Schultz has since appealed the ruling. In his appeal, his lawyer, Johannes Brand, argued that Schultz denies any involvement in the alleged cannabis cultivation operation. He maintains that the area where the cannabis was allegedly grown was enclosed by fencing and secured with locked gates. According to his evidence, he neither possessed keys to the enclosure nor exercised control over access to the area.

He further told the court that he had no lawful or practical access to the alleged plantation and denied any knowledge of, or connection to, the operation. His legal team argued that the absence of any demonstrated financial benefit weakens the State's assertion that he occupied a position of authority within a large-scale cannabis cultivation operation.

The appeal also challenges findings relating to possible interference with witnesses or the investigation. Schultz contends that no evidence was presented to show that he had interfered with witnesses or attempted to do so.