Labour union jumps on lawsuit bandwagon

THE National Union of Namibian Workers yesterday jumped to the defence of former President Sam Nujoma, charging that he was “right” to sue The Namibian.

Addressing a press conference in Windhoek, NUNW Secretary General Evilastus Kaaronda said Nujoma had exercised his right in suing the paper. Kaaronda tried to deflect criticism of Nujoma’s action as a “political conspiracy engineered by anti-Namibian and anti-Swapo organisations” like the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa).He claimed that both Misa and the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) had lied when they said Nujoma’s move would muzzle the media or suppress public opinion.Nujoma is suing The Namibian for N$5 million.The former president claims that by merely reporting on evidence given during a public inquiry into the Avid-SCC corruption scandal last year, the newspaper had implied that Nujoma was corrupt.Nujoma’s name was mentioned in an affidavit submitted in the High Court during last year’s Avid inquiry by Avril Green, former manager at the Social Security Commission (SSC).Green alleged in his affidavit that he had been approached by Ralph Blaauw, former Swapo MP, on January 3 last year and told that he had been sent by “a higher authority” to introduce Avid Investment Corporation (Pty) Ltd to the SSC.”He [Blaauw] told me that he represents Avid …and that 80 per cent of the shares in the Investment Company belongs to the Swapo Party Youth League which resorts under the President of Namibia.He also told me that the President had a share in the company but that it would not be disclosed anywhere,” Green said in the affidavit.The Namibian reported on Green’s affidavit.It was followed the next day with a denial from Nujoma, who called a press conference following the wide publicity given to the affidavit in Namibia and internationally.Other media institutions also reported on the affidavit and Nujoma’s response.Kaaronda claimed The Namibian was “irresponsible” and should have checked the correctness of the affidavit.”Misa and the NSHR should stop creating the perception that the media institutions are untouchable and, therefore, must abuse their rights,” Kaaronda said.He rejected the notion that Nujoma’s action was aimed at shooting the messenger or constituted intimidation.”It is our clear belief that President Nujoma has every right to sue any person, legal or otherwise, if he deems that fit for whatever reason.As such all Namibians must indeed support his honourable action as he chose not to take the law into his own hands, which I am sure if it were the case, the NSHR and The Namibian would have been the first to jump onto his throat,” Kaaronda said.He claimed that The Namibian and the NSHR had “a vendetta” against Nujoma while the Chairperson of Misa Namibia was also employed by the newspaper.”So, who is fooling who?” he asked.The NUNW, which has received funds from European institutions, then claimed that Misa and the NSHR served the interests of “imperialist European donors”.Misa said the newspaper was merely reporting on information already in the public domain, information that was made available in a public hearing and which is contained in a sworn affidavit that was filed with the court.Kaaronda tried to deflect criticism of Nujoma’s action as a “political conspiracy engineered by anti-Namibian and anti-Swapo organisations” like the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa).He claimed that both Misa and the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) had lied when they said Nujoma’s move would muzzle the media or suppress public opinion.Nujoma is suing The Namibian for N$5 million.The former president claims that by merely reporting on evidence given during a public inquiry into the Avid-SCC corruption scandal last year, the newspaper had implied that Nujoma was corrupt.Nujoma’s name was mentioned in an affidavit submitted in the High Court during last year’s Avid inquiry by Avril Green, former manager at the Social Security Commission (SSC).Green alleged in his affidavit that he had been approached by Ralph Blaauw, former Swapo MP, on January 3 last year and told that he had been sent by “a higher authority” to introduce Avid Investment Corporation (Pty) Ltd to the SSC.”He [Blaauw] told me that he represents Avid …and that 80 per cent of the shares in the Investment Company belongs to the Swapo Party Youth League which resorts under the President of Namibia.He also told me that the President had a share in the company but that it would not be disclosed anywhere,” Green said in the affidavit.The Namibian reported on Green’s affidavit.It was followed the next day with a denial from Nujoma, who called a press conference following the wide publicity given to the affidavit in Namibia and internationally.Other media institutions also reported on the affidavit and Nujoma’s response.Kaaronda claimed The Namibian was “irresponsible” and should have checked the correctness of the affidavit.”Misa and the NSHR should stop creating the perception that the media institutions are untouchable and, therefore, must abuse their rights,” Kaaronda said.He rejected the notion that Nujoma’s action was aimed at shooting the messenger or constituted intimidation.”It is our clear belief that President Nujoma has every right to sue any person, legal or otherwise, if he deems that fit for whatever reason.As such all Namibians must indeed support his honourable action as he chose not to take the law into his own hands, which I am sure if it were the case, the NSHR and The Namibian would have been the first to jump onto his throat,” Kaaronda said.He claimed that The Namibian and the NSHR had “a vendetta” against Nujoma while the Chairperson of Misa Namibia was also employed by the newspaper.”So, who is fooling who?” he asked.The NUNW, which has received funds from European institutions, then claimed that Misa and the NSHR served the interests of “imperialist European donors”.Misa said the newspaper was merely reporting on information already in the public domain, information that was made available in a public hearing and which is contained in a sworn affidavit that was filed with the court.