Dust around Namfisa ‘deal or no deal’ drama refuses to settle

THE Namfisa board says taking the route of a settlement with its now resigned CEO, Rainer Ritter, would not have served in anyone’s interest, and the financial watchdog intends to resume his disciplinary hearing within 30 days.

According to Ritter and his defence team, a settlement, in which all the charges against Ritter were withdrawn, was concluded and confirmed by Thursday.’NOT A DEAL’However Rick Kukuri, Chairperson of the Namfisa Board of Directors, maintains the settlement was not a settlement, and only a proposal.’No settlement was agreed to and confirmed. What was reached was a proposal, and when we had a re-look at the proposal, we saw that it was not in anyone’s interests to go that route.’He noted that ‘as a public institution with several stakeholders’, it would be in the national interest for Namfisa to see through the hearing, and thereby remain fully accountable on its functioning.’We can’t gloss over the law in this context.’Kukuri added that the lawyers acting for Namfisa – Profysen Muluti as instructing attorney and Advocate Gerson Narib as prosecutor – could not ‘accept’ an agreement, but could only ‘negotiate and then come back to the parties’ – in this case Ritter and the Namfisa board.He added that ‘the board did not adjudicate (judge) its position,’ and had simply asked its lawyers to represent it in the hearing.Kukuri also confirmed that both Narib and Muluti have since withdrawn from the hearing, though Narib preferred to term his resignation from the proceedings not a withdrawal, but as having ‘asked the client to get alternative counsel’.He would not comment on whether the consensus reached last week was in the form of a ‘settlement agreement’ or a ‘proposed agreement’.Namfisa has in the meantime instructed Shafimana Ueitele of Ueitele and Hans Legal Practitioners to take over the case. The financial watchdog has since served Ritter’s lawyers with a notice to resume the hearing within 30 days.Ritter refused to talk to The Namibian when contacted for comment yesterday, and a call to his lawyer, Hettie Garbers-Kirsten, was not returned.Advocate Sackey Akweenda, who chaired the hearing, has not provided the board with any indication of withdrawing.NO MINISTER SPIKEKukuri also emphasised that the Minister of Finance, Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila, had not rejected the settlement herself, and that this decision was reached by the board itself.’It is not the Minister who decided not to settle. This is a board matter, and the final decision was with the board. But we had to do this in consultation with the Minister in terms of the law. After we did so, the board later had its own session, and decided that the option of a settlement does not serve anyone.’He also noted that in terms of the law, the Board may only appoint the CEO in consultation with the Minister. ‘Therefore, if we decide to terminate the appointment of the CEO, it goes without saying that the same procedure (in consulting the Minister) would be followed.’But by last Thursday, Ritter was adamant that the agreement was a done deal. ‘I wish to make it clear that Namfisa would have no choice in this regard as a binding agreement has been reached,’ he said in a media statement. DOTS NOT CONNECTINGBut something is amiss in this financial drama.According to various sources involved in the process, one of the arguments raised by Ritter’s defence team was that the Namfisa board had no powers to act because the names of its members had not been gazetted, rendering it illegal.If this is the case, however, the settlement, whether real or proposed, in addition to all the decisions of the board since its tenure and the very structure of Namfisa itself, are illegitimate, and the entire proceeding a farce.’They put up a stick in the process by saying that the board is illegal because it is not gazetted, and then suddenly wanted to settle. But then how do you settle with an illegal board?’ Kukuri questioned. CHARGES REVEALED?Meanwhile, the charges Ritter faced during the hearing have become public knowledge, after much of the charge sheet was published in a local weekly this weekend.According to a reliable source, the published charges contained most of the elements of the actual charge sheet, but omitted a fourth charge and an alternative to the first charge.All the parties contacted – Ritter, Smuts, Kukuri, Muluti and Narib – refused to comment on the published charge sheet, or to verify whether it was the actual charge sheet in its entirety.nangula@namibian.com.na