PRESS RELEASE

Namibia’s National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) is calling on the Namibian Head of State, President Lucas Hifikepunye Pohamba, to urgently appoint an independent commission of enquiry lead by an independent special investigator to probe the widespread allegations of conflict of interest on the part of Justice Minister and Attorney General Ms. Pendukeni Iivula Ithana.

The country’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) last Friday, February 22 2008, convened a Press Conference at 14h30 in the Namibian capital in order to respond and or comment about “two pressing issues that have been drawing public concern so much”. According to ACC Director Noa one of the said issues “concerns the HA-NA-HE butchery, which belongs to the Honorable Minister [of Justice] and Attorney General, Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana, and her husband”. In essence, Mr. Noa also used the Press Conference to respond and or comment directly and indirectly to the contents of the previous NSHR Press Release issued on February 17 2008.

In said Press Release, the human rights monitoring and advocacy organization inter alia described a previous Press Statement by ACC issued on February 14 2008, on the scandalous meat supply contract saga, as “a deliberate pre-emptive strike and a blatant whitewash exercise apparently intended to frustrate, thwart and undermine anticipated additional public outrage against Ms. Ithana”.

Therefore, NSHR is gravely concerned that the aforementioned ACC Press Conference has created even more questions than answers and has led to even more widespread public perception that ACC is not impartial and or is defending Ms. Ithana in the alleged meat scandal saga. According to Mr. Noa, ACC has found “no substance” of conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Ithana.

Hence, the human rights body is not at all convinced, let alone being surprised by the latest ACC response and or comments relating to the contents of the NSHR Press Release of February 17 2008 on the said saga. Although it has found that there was no bidding (i.e. tendering) concerning the meat supply contract of Ms. Ithana and that Namibia Wildlife Resorts (NWR) Managing Director Tobie Aupindi has, prior to his appointment to NWR, been a personal assistant to Ms. Ithana, the ACC has still not found any conflict of interest in the meat supply deal!

In terms of Section 29 of the State-owned Enterprises Governance Act (SOEGA) 2006 (Act 2 of 2006), the State-owned Enterprises Governance Council (SOEGC) established in terms of Section 2(1) of SOEGA “may […] direct that a special investigation be conducted in relation to any matter concerning the business, trade, dealings, affairs, assets or liabilities of a State-owned enterprise […]”. It is against this background that NSHR is now calling upon not SOEGC, but President Pohamba, to urgently appoint an independent special investigator to probe the following aspects of Ms. Pendukeni Ithana’s contract with NWR:

1. Whether or not NWR is a State-owned enterprise and, further, whether or not NWR is listed, as such, under Schedule 1 of SOEGA.

2. Whether or not NWR is a “public body” as defined in terms of Sections 32(7) (a) and 32(7) (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act (ACA) 2003 (Act 8 of 2003).

3. Whether or not Justice Minister and Attorney General Ms. Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana is a “public officer” as contemplated in terms of Sections 32(8)(a), 32(8)(b) and or 32(8)(e) of ACA.

4. Whether or not the Ms. Ithana is an “executive member” of SOEGC, established in terms of Section 2(1) of SOEGA, read with Section 3(1) (d) thereof, and whether or not by implication, Ms. Ithana is an “executive member” of NWR as defined under Section 1 of SOEGA and or in relation to the board of directors of NWR.

5. Whether or not Mr. Tobie Aupindi is the “chief executive officer” or the “managing director” in relation to NWR as defined in terms of Section 1 of SOEGA, read with Sections 1 and 5 of the Namibia Wildlife Resorts Company Act (NWRCA) 1998 (Act 3 of 1998).

6. Whether or Mr. Aupindi has, prior to becoming the managing director of NWR, been in any way a personal assistant to Ms. Ithana in any public capacity, including in her capacity as Minister of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation.

7. Whether or not Ms. Ithana in her capacity as Minister of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation as contemplated in terms of Section 4(1)(c) of NWRCA, read with Section 5(1) of NWRCA, has nominated and or appointed Mr. Aupindi to become the managing director of NWR.

8. Whether or not Mr. Aupindi is an executive member of the Board of Directors of NWR as contemplated in terms of Section 4(1) and, as such, takes active part in and or attends all meetings of such Board as envisaged in Section 5(3) of NWRCA.

9. Whether or not Ms. Ithana has knowingly and or corruptly acquired and consequently is a party to a contract or an agreement emanating from or connected with NWR about the abovementioned meat supply deal to NWR in the Etosha National Park and or elsewhere.

10. Whether or not Ms. Ithana has, as contemplated under Section 43(2), made a decision or has taken part directly or indirectly in any decision-making process in which she or her husband, Mr. Josef Ithana, has an interest, whether directly or directly pertaining or relating to the said contract or agreement between HA-NA-HE Butchery CC and NWR to supply meat to the latter in the Etosha National Park and or elsewhere. If so, whether or not this is sufficient evidence that Ms. Ithana has corruptly used her office and or position in NWR or related public body to obtain gratification as contemplated under Sections 32 (4) (b) and 32(4)(g) of ACA.

11. Whether or not Ms. Ithana has ipso facto committed any offense, in terms of any law, code of ethics or directive governing the public service, by knowingly and corruptly acquiring or being a party to the said meat supply contract or the agreement in question emanating from or connected with NWR.

12. Whether or not and or why not Ms. Ithana should be charged with an offense in terms of any provisions of ACA or the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) 1977 (Act 51 of 1977) or any other statutory or common law or code of ethics governing the management of the public service as defined in terms of Section 1 of the Public Service Act (PSA) 1995 (Act 13 of 1995).

13. Whether or not by Ms. Ithana, being an executive member of SOEGC, this creates an apparent, potential or actual conflict of interest or reasonable risk of the public perception of such conflict.

14. Whether or not by Ms. Ithana being a party to the said contract this constitutes one of the acceptable common principles and good practices governing State-owned enterprises as contemplated under Section 4(1) (a) of SOEGA.

15. Whether or not Ms. Ithana had made disclosure referred to under Section 6(1) of SOEGA and, if so, whether or not positive proof to that effect, in the form of the minutes thereof, as contemplated in Section 6(2) of SOEGA, can be obtained.

16. Whether or not Ms. Ithana, directly or indirectly, holds a remunerated office or position in either NWR and or in SOEGC as established in terms of Section 2(1) of SOEGA, read with Section 3(1) (d) Section thereof.

17. Whether or not Ms. Ithana is a member of SOEGC and, if so, whether or not Ms. Ithana is ipso facto a public officer as envisaged in terms of Sections 32(8)(a), 32(8)(b) and 32(8)(e) of ACA and, furthermore, whether or not NWR, SOEGC, MoJ, Office of Attorney General and National Assembly are considered as “public bodies”, as contemplated under Sections 32(7)(a) and 32(7)(c) of ACA.

18. Whether or not by being a member of SOEGC, Ms. Ithana receives or derives any remuneration or any other benefits, as contemplated in Sections 4(1)(a)(iii) and 22(1) of SOEGA.

Should the above-mentioned independent special investigation conclude that there was, indeed, as NSHR and others suspect, conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Ithana, then the human rights organization demands that a similar independent investigation should be instituted to determine whether or not incompetence, a conflict of interest or misconduct on the part of the ACC were at play in its recent HA-NA-HE probe.

It must be abundantly pointed out that the essence of Namibia’s anti-corruption doctrine is to ensure that every public official is guided solely by the public interest and that conflict of interest, whether apparent, potential or actual is strictly proscribed.

“Accordingly, a public office constitutes a public trust created in the interest of and for the benefit of all our people, not a bonanza for self-enrichment. Our public officials are obligated to discharge their duties with integrity. They may never abuse their official positions for their private benefits. When public officials are influenced in the performance of their duties by improper considerations of personal advantage, they violate their oath of office and vitiate the public trust vested in them. After all, self-enrichment and the lack accountability on the part of especially the ruling elite in this country is one of the principal root causes of the unacceptable inequitable distribution of income and the resultant gross income disparities that have been plaguing our country since independence and even prior thereto”, said NSHR executive director Phil ya Nangoloh.


For additional comment, please contact: Dorkas Phillemon at Tel: 061 253 447 or 061 236 183 (office hours only) or Phil ya Nangoloh at Cell: 0811 299 886