ODC ‘lies’ backfire

PERMANENT Secretary for Trade and Industry Andrew Ndishishi was yesterday labelled a “serial perjuror” for providing conflicting information to the High Court in a bid to prevent the Offshore Development Company from being liquidated.

Despite Ndishishi previously denying taking or investing money for information technology company Silnam, the ODC yesterday agreed to repay, by May, the entire N$7,6 million demanded from it by Silnam. This after Ndishishi maintained in an affidavit that the ODC was not refusing to repay Silnam’s money, but rather chose not to because it doubted the legality of the investment transaction.By staving off a bid to liquidate the ODC, the company also prevented a Companies Act inquiry – as happened in the Avid-SSC case – into tracing the more than N$100 million in public funds that has seemingly vanished.The settlement agreement was only presented after ODC legal counsel Gerson Hinda failed to get the court to agree to postpone the liquidation application for another two weeks.Hinda argued that he required the assistance of senior South African counsel who were not immediately available.For Silnam, Raymond Heathcote, assisted by Esi Schimming-Chase, told Judge Kato van Niekerk that from documents placed before the court it was “apparent” and “clear” that the ODC had to be investigated.Presenting a number of arguments on why the postponement should not be granted, Heathcote pointed her to an affidavit given by Ndishishi in another case, in which he acknowledged and outlined the trail of events that led the ODC to fraudulently invest more than N$99 million, including N$10 million of Silnam.The ODC is a 26 per cent shareholder in Silnam.However, in another affidavit to the same attorney in the present case, Ndishishi flatly denied that the ODC had been investing money, least of all that it received money from Silnam to do so on their behalf.The first of Ndishishi’s affidavits on the missing ODC millions has been filed with the High Court in a matter still to be heard, in which the ODC is attempting to sequestrate the estate of embattled financial broker Pieter Boonzaaier, whom it claims was involved in the investment.”What has been done by Ndishishi is rather untenable.This is serial perjury.There is no basis that it can be said that there is a defence to this matter,” Heathcote told the Judge.In defence, Hinda argued that the information referred to appeared in different affidavits in two different cases, and that as more information came to light and the investigation progressed on finding the missing millions, Ndishishi was within his rights to alter information provided to the court based on his new knowledge.Van Niekerk commented that perhaps Ndishishi should have acknowledged this in his second affidavit, in which he changed his story.TWISTED TALES In an affidavit in the liquidation case, Ndishishi said the ODC was “not in the business of investments”.He further contended that the ODC board was not aware until last August that Silnam had “invested” with it.Ndishishi also disputed that the money returned to Silnam (N$2,5 million) after the investment was made, was in fact a repayment on the investment.He maintained that ODC employees as well as Silnam employees should have known that the ODC was not a financial services provider and that an investment agreement would have rendered conduct on behalf of those involved illegal.But in an affidavit in the Boonzaaier case in November, Ndishishi admits, in an affidavit, to the ODC investing N$100 million and the slim chances of getting the money back.Ndishishi goes as far as to provide a breakdown of the parties and the amounts of money they invested with the ODC, including money from Silnam – all of which was transferred to Great Triangle Investments (GTI).In the first of the affidavits, Ndishishi said he knew about Silnam’s investment despite denying this in a subsequent affidavit he gave under oath in the Silnam case.In the Boonzaaier case, Ndishishi also makes it clear that the ODC had been investing money since 2001.He also outlines how one of two instalments of N$5 million from Silnam was paid to the ODC and then on to Great Triangle.In the Silnam affidavit, however, Ndishishi says the legal standing of Great Triangle is not determined and that its activities are still to be determined.”There are investigations underway to establish what GTI really was,” Ndishishi said in his affidavit in defence on the liquidation application, despite openly explaining the investments ODC made with this company in the Boonzaaier affidavit.It is claimed that Boonzaaier pocketed at least N$12 million from the millions the ODC invested with Great Triangle and that the sequestration of his estate would be to the benefit of creditors and help the ODC track its money.Ndishishi has said in his affidavit that Boonzaaier’s sequestration would be in the “public interest”.COUGHING UP ANYWAY Despite its denials of the investment, the ODC has now agreed to repay N$4,5 million of Silnam’s N$7,6 million by Friday.This amount represents the capital amount as at December 31 2005, with 18 per cent interest until the date of repayment.The repayment amount and interest returns were agreed to despite Ndishishi’s denial that these were the investment conditions.In the agreement signed by ODC acting CEO Nghidinua Daniel and Silnam Managing Director Dasa Padachi, the ODC further agrees to repay the remaining amount of money in three equal monthly instalments on the seventh of each month from March to May.It will also pay N$50 000 towards Silnam’s legal costs.Failure to comply with these conditions could, however, still see the liquidation application return to court.In deciding whether or not to grant the ODC a postponement in hearing the liquidation application, Judge Van Niekerk said she found the reasons put forward as very sketchy, vague and even incomprehensible in parts.She said if Hinda needed help from outside Namibia as he had claimed, and given that he deemed the matter very important and complex, his instructing attorneys would have put in even more effort to see that they got counsel to represent them on the date set down.Heathcote told Judge Van Niekerk that in deciding whether or not the matter should proceed immediately, she should consider that perhaps that the ODC had not prepared a defence for the liquidation application.Heathcote argued that by the ODC’s board own admission, it deemed the conduct of its three managers – Nghidinua Daniel, Philip Namundjebo and Mabos Ortmann – fraudulent as far as the investments were concerned, and this gave even more weight to an application that the ODC be investigated.”It is incomprehensible…[that] those very fraudsters are today in charge,” said Heathcote.”Daniel became the CEO…Namundjebo and Ortmann are still around.They are running this business.If ever there was a need for liquidation, it must start immediately.”But the court didn’t get to hear any more about the botched investment, its players or why the company should be liquidated.When the matter resumed in the afternoon, the court heard that an agreement had been reached and the liquidation application was put on hold until all the money is repaid.In the papers filed with the court, the ODC said it could not be considered for liquidation with assets of N$67 million, and that the missing N$100 million did not affect its ability to carry on operations.This after Ndishishi maintained in an affidavit that the ODC was not refusing to repay Silnam’s money, but rather chose not to because it doubted the legality of the investment transaction.By staving off a bid to liquidate the ODC, the company also prevented a Companies Act inquiry – as happened in the Avid-SSC case – into tracing the more than N$100 million in public funds that has seemingly vanished.The settlement agreement was only presented after ODC legal counsel Gerson Hinda failed to get the court to agree to postpone the liquidation application for another two weeks.Hinda argued that he required the assistance of senior South African counsel who were not immediately available.For Silnam, Raymond Heathcote, assisted by Esi Schimming-Chase, told Judge Kato van Niekerk that from documents placed before the court it was “apparent” and “clear” that the ODC had to be investigated.Presenting a number of arguments on why the postponement should not be granted, Heathcote pointed her to an affidavit given by Ndishishi in another case, in which he acknowledged and outlined the trail of events that led the ODC to fraudulently invest more than N$99 million, including N$10 million of Silnam.The ODC is a 26 per cent shareholder in Silnam.However, in another affidavit to the same attorney in the present case, Ndishishi flatly denied that the ODC had been investing money, least of all that it received money from Silnam to do so on their behalf.The first of Ndishishi’s affidavits on the missing ODC millions has been filed with the High Court in a matter still to be heard, in which the ODC is attempting to sequestrate the estate of embattled financial broker Pieter Boonzaaier, whom it claims was involved in the investment.”What has been done by Ndishishi is rather untenable.This is serial perjury.There is no basis that it can be said that there is a defence to this matter,” Heathcote told the Judge.In defence, Hinda argued that the information referred to appeared in different affidavits in two different cases, and that as more information came to light and the investigation progressed on finding the missing millions, Ndishishi was within his rights to alter information provided to the court based on his new knowledge.Van Niekerk commented that perhaps Ndishishi should have acknowledged this in his second affidavit, in which he changed his story.TWISTED TALES In an affidavit in the liquidation case, Ndishishi said the ODC was “not in the business of investments”.He further contended that the ODC board was not aware until last August that Silnam had “invested” with it.Ndishishi also disputed that the money returned to Silnam (N$2,5 million) after the investment was made, was in fact a repayment on the investment.He maintained that ODC employees as well as Silnam employees should have known that the ODC was not a financial services provider and that an investment agreement would have rendered conduct on behalf of those involved illegal.But in an affidavit in the Boonzaaier case in November, Ndishishi admits, in an affidavit, to the ODC investing N$100 million and the slim chances of getting the money back.Ndishishi goes as far as to provide a breakdown of the parties and the amounts of money they invested with the ODC, including money from Silnam – all of which was transferred to Great Triangle Investments (GTI).In the first of the affidavits, Ndishishi said he knew about Silnam’s investment despite denying this in a subsequent affidavit he gave under oath in the Silnam case.In the Boonzaaier case, Ndishishi also makes it clear that the ODC had been investing money since 2001.He also outlines how one of two instalments of N$5 million from Silnam was paid to the ODC and then on to Great Triangle.In the Silnam affidavit, however, Ndishishi says the legal standing of Great Triangle is not determined and that its activities are still to be determined.”There are investigations underway to establish what GTI really was,” Ndishishi said in his affidavit in defence on the liquidation application, despite openly explaining the investments ODC made with this company in the Boonzaaier affidavit.It is claimed that Boonzaaier pocketed at least N$12 million from the millions the ODC invested with Great Triangle and that the sequestration of his estate would be to the benefit of creditors and help the ODC track its money.Ndishishi has said in his affidavit that Boonzaaier’s sequestration would be in the “public interest”.COUGHING UP ANYWAY Despite its denials of the investment, the ODC has now agreed to repay N$4,5 million of Silnam’s N$7,6 million by Friday.This amount represents the capital amount as at December 31 2005, with 18 per cent interest until the date of repayment.The repayment amount and interest returns were agreed to despite Ndishishi’s denial that these were the investment conditions.In the agreement signed by ODC acting CEO Nghidinua Daniel and Silnam Managing Director Dasa Padachi, the ODC further agrees to repay the remaining amount of money in three equal monthly instalments on the seventh of each month from March to May.It will also pay N$50 000 towards Silnam’s legal costs.Failure to comply with these conditions could, however, still see the liquidation application return to court.In deciding whether or not to grant the ODC a postponement in hearing the liquidation application, Judge Van Niekerk said she found the reasons put forward as very sketchy, vague and even incomprehensible in parts.She said if Hinda needed help from outside Namibia as he had claimed, and given that he deemed the matter very important and complex, his instructing attorneys would have put in even more effort to see that they got counsel to represent them on the date set down.Heathcote told Judge Van Niekerk that in deciding whether or not the matter should proceed immediately, she should consider that perhaps that the ODC had not prepared a defence for the liquidation application.Heathcote argued that by the ODC’s board own admission, it deemed the conduct of its three managers – Nghidinua Daniel, Philip Namundjebo and Mabos Ortmann – fraudulent as far as the investments were concerned, and this gave even more weight to an application that the ODC be investigated.”It is incomprehensible…[that] those very fraudsters are today in charge,” said Heathcote.”Daniel became the CEO…Namundjebo and Ortmann are still around.They are running this business.If ever there was a need for liquidation, it must start immediately.”But the court didn’t get to hear any more about the botched investment, its players or why the company should be liquidated.When the matter resumed in the afternoon, the court heard that an agreement had been reached and the liquidation application was put on hold until all the money is repaid.In the papers filed with the court, the ODC said it could not be considered for liquidation with assets of N$67 million, and that the missing N$100 million did not affect its ability to carry on operations.