Mulunga drops the Namcor suit: the truth, by itself.

May 2, 2024 Vaseline stjohnson 0

Suspended managing director of Namibian Petroleum Corporation, Immanuel Mulunga, has withdrawn the lawsuit against his employer over the two charges he faces.

In court on Monday, Labor Court Judge Eileen Rakow removed the matter from the court docket after Mulunga filed a notice to withdraw the case on April 19.

Their lawyer, Jermaine Muchali, informed New Era this Monday that they chose to withdraw the review request, since “the legal issues contained therein are subject to another pending hearing.”

According to Namcor spokesperson Utaara Hoveka, Mulunga’s employment remains the same; He is still suspended and the internal disciplinary process is ongoing.

Mulunga approached the Labor Court requesting that the charge sheet for a disciplinary hearing, dated 24 May 2023, be corrected, revised and set aside or alternatively declared contrary to the provisions of Namcor’s industrial relations policy.

In addition, he asked the Labor Court to declare void any additional measure taken by his employer due to the statement of objections.

In his affidavit, Mulunga claims that the charges were not filed within a reasonable time from when the necessary facts became available to Namcor’s board of directors.

He said the policy states that any disciplinary action by Namcor must be removed within 90 days from the time the violation was officially reported to Namcor.

Furthermore, investigations into the charges were not conducted by the initiator but by a third party, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr from South Africa.

The charges Mulunga faces are fraud (withholding information from the board of directors): he intended to order the finance department to transfer $6.7 million to Sungara Energies from the account of Namcor Exploration and Production (Namcor E&P) , a subsidiary of Namcor. , although he had the duty to do so.

He claimed that he had been charged by the wrong entity as he authorized the payment from the bank account of Namcor Exploration and Production Limited and not from that of the Namcor holding company.

For this reason, he said, Namcor Exploration and Production Limited should have pressed charges against him.

“I was not accused by Namcor Exploration and Production Limited but by the defendant (Namcor), which is a different corporate entity. The charges are erroneous for this reason and must be reviewed and dismissed,” Mulunga stated.

Responding to Mulunga’s suit, Tim Ekandjo, deputy chairman of Namcor’s board of directors, said he should not have gone to the Labor Court as internal processes are still ongoing.

“The role of the Employment Tribunal, under the law, is not to interfere with pending disciplinary proceedings in the workplace. If the Labor Court has no such function, the relief sought by the applicant in this case cannot also be incidental to such lack of function,” Ekandjo said in his replying affidavit.

“It is quite strange for Mulunga to claim that Namcor Exploration and Production Limited should have charged him when he had knowledge of the structures,” Ekandjo continued.

Ekandjo added that although Namcor Exploration and Production Limited and Namcor Petroleum Trading and Distribution are wholly owned subsidiaries of Namcor, they operate as departments of Namcor.

Ekandjo further explained that the payment Mulunga made was not on behalf of Namcor Exploration and Production Limited nor to settle its obligations.

“It was rather an unauthorized payment related to Sequa and Petrolog’s contractual obligations to Sungara… These funds were necessary for Sungara to be in a position to pay the deposit to secure the opportunity,” Ekandjo said.

[email protected]