 in it. This meant that the report based upon it in the Informante was also untrue including the further embellishments upon it which were contained in that report, accusing him of squandering and embezzling N$5 million.
[34] Prof Hangula stated that his meeting with the Chancellor was humiliating for him and that the publication in Informante had injured him in his personal feelings and damaged his reputation and that it had profoundly offended him and injured him in his dignity.
[35] Prof Hangula confirmed that NANTU was a recognised bargaining unit at UNAM and that the university had a relationship with NANTU but not with NUNW. He referred to the appointments complained about in both the letter and in the report. He stated that those appointed to the positions in question were not expatriates, were mostly Namibian citizens and that there had been nothing wrong in the procedure followed in appointing them. He was however vague when asked to explain the procedures which would be followed in respect of academic and non-academic promotions and appointments of staff at the university and stated that Mr Izaks, UNAM’s Human Resource Manager, would address those questions in his evidence. He denied that the university in any way contravened immigration legislation or was engaged in corrupt practices. He also denied overruling committees in respect of appointments and promotions. He further pointed out that the complaints raised about the appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor were wrongly directed to him. He pointed out that that appointment is made by university council under the empowering legislation.[1] He said that this appointment had not been made by himself or senior management but by the council in a process which had been led by the council and that Dr Riruako had lost the contest for that position.
[36] Much of his cross-examination centred upon the MPPA and the expenditure of funds for which supporting documentation could not be provided and which amounts were then repaid to ACBF. He said in his evidence-in-chief that the amounts in question which could not be accounted for had predated his appointed as Vice-Chancellor and that he was not, according to his recollection, involved in the transfer of the impugned funds from the grant account. During cross-examination, he was however obliged to accept that he had signed one of the requisitions for one the payments for which supporting documentation could not be found. This has occurred in April 2004.
[37] Prof Hangula also pointed out in cross-examination that some of the documentation relating to the MPPA had been kept by Dr Riruako to the exclusion of the university management. He denied that he had ever seen the final forensic report and stated that this had only come to light shortly before the commencement of the trial when the lawyers for the media defendants had disclosed documentation provided to them by Dr Riruako. He was not able to shed light upon the payments made to Professors El Toukhey and Harris as these predated his tenure as Vice-Chancellor. He conceded that he did not follow up on the draft report after the meeting in June 2006, following the decision to re-imburse ACBF. He conceded that he did not make further inquiries to Dr Riruako or to other members of management concerning further steps to be taken in order to further investigate why the documentation could not be traced and what the transactions related to.
[38] Prof Hangula suspected that Dr Riruako’s grudge against UNAM had been the cause for his failure to provide the final report and documentation to management and for approaching Mr Kaaronda and thereafter assisting the lawyers for the media defendants in defending the defamation action.
[39] Prof Hangula conceded that the draft report had not been reported to the university council. He said that this was because at that stage only a draft had been provided and that it first needed to be finalised, as is stated in that report. But he confirmed that he did not direct inquiries for a final report.
[40] As to Ms Nyangove’s attempts to contact him, he confirmed that he was in northern Namibia at the time and that his phone may have then given a response that he was unreachable. He however denied that he had received an SMS text from Ms Nyangove. During his cross-examination he was requested to provide his cellphone number to the media defendants’ lawyers who said that there would be further investigation of that aspect. Nothing however came of that.
[41] Prof Mwandemele testified that as Pro-Vice-Chancellor he is a member of the university’s top management. The top management comprised those appointments made by council, as is specified in UNAM’s empowering legislation.[2] These were the Vice-Chancellor, the two Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Bursar, the Registrar and the Librarian. He confirmed that he had only seen the final forensic report shortly before the trial as it was only then provided by Dr Riruako and only then through the intervention of the media defendants’ lawyers. Shortly before the trial, Dr Riruako had returned what Prof Mwandembele termed a ‘truck load of documents’ to the university. He also stated that Dr Riruako was responsible for managing the finances of the project during the times that he was at its helm. He also stated that where documentation could not be located for certain expenditure did not mean to say that it was necessarily unaccounted for. It merely meant that the documentation for those transactions could not be found. He pointed out that the expenditure of the items in question which were reimbursed to the donor had predated those who served in top management at the time of the Informante report.
[42] The Bursar, Mr Jansen, also gave evidence. He stated that the MPPA funds were separately accounted for from the funds of the university. He confirmed that they were under the control of the Vice-Chancellor at the time. He confirmed that there were certain items of expenditure for which he could not find the supporting documentation after it had been requested from him. At the time of the transactions in question, he had not been Bursar and had worked within the financial department of the university. He stated that, as far as he could recall, the payments to Professor Harris, for which supporting documentation could not be found, related to the ‘top up’ of his salary for which the university took responsibility. He accepted that he did not sustain damage as a consequence of the publication of Mr Kaaronda’s letter to the erstwhile Chancellor.
[43] During cross-examination, he stated that there were regular management meetings of the top management of the university which take place every second month. He could not however recall that any follow up or call for the final report was raised at any management meeting after the meeting with the Vice-Chancellor in June 2006 concerning the draft report where it had been decided to reimburse ACBF for the funds for which supporting documentation could not be located. He insisted that this was the reason for the reimbursement of the money and not that it could not be accounted for at all. He stated that, as far he was concerned, the payments in question could be (partially) accounted for in the sense of identifying the recipients and in some instances what they had been for but accepted that supporting documents could not be traced and that some payments did not fall within the ambit of the ACBF grant.
[44] The evidence of Mr Izaks, the Human Resource Manager of UNAM centred on the procedures for appointments and promotion of staff at UNAM. He explained this in some detail. He pointed out that the university had the need to secure expatriates to the university for the infusion of new and fresh ideas at such an institution of higher learning. He said that expatriates only made up seven percent of the teaching staff of the university. He stated that he was unaware of any instances where the Vice-Chancellor had overruled committee recommendations on personnel issues, as had been referred to in both the letter and in the report. He referred to the specific positions raised in the letter and report and stated there had not been anything untoward or unprocedural in those appointments.
[45] Mr Kaaronda, in his testimony, stated that he had no idea how his letter had fallen into the hands of Informante. He stated that he had intended it as a confidential letter to the Chancellor and had taken some care to secure its confidentiality. He was at pains to point out that his letter had not stated that the Vice-Chancellor had squandered N$5 million and that the word ‘embezzled’ had not appeared in his letter.
[46] Mr Kaaronda stated that his meeting of NANTU members included Dr Riruako. The meeting centred on complaints that UNAM’s management did not take NANTU’s grievances seriously. He said that his letter was first prepared as a draft at the meeting. It was then discussed with those present and finalised. When asked as to why he had decided to address his letter to the then Chancellor, he stated that he had first contacted Prof Amaambo, Chairperson of Council who said that he was on his way to the airport and referred him to Dr Ndeutala Angolo, Deputy Chairperson of the Council. He had contacted her, but she had stated that she was attending a family function in the north of the country. He did not want to pursue the matter further with her, given the fact that she had, according to reports in the media, been implicated in the award of a large tender (of N$80 million) by UNAM to a company in which she had an interest (for the construction of the university hostels). He pointed out that the media reports had implicated her in the allocation on