Petrotek directors deny tribalism allegations

A SHAREHOLDER of Petrotek, Mac Hengari, yesterday said that tribalism is not at the heart of the battle among shareholders, but people trying to maximise their benefits within the company.

‘I do not believe these are tribal things; people are fighting for money,’ Hengari said. Suspended managing director of Petrotek, Isaiah Kavendjii, stands accused of having given himself, Hengari and Swapo Party MP and shareholder Juliet Kavetuna loans without approval by the board of the company. Hengari, who was given a loan of N$100 000, said he had given his offices and infrastructure to Petrotek during the start-up of the company during the first six months. And after Petrotek moved out of his facilities, he said he noticed loans were being dished out to shareholders, upon which he also requested a loan in writing to cause a paper trail of the loan request. Kavetuna yesterday reiterated that she insisted on getting money from the company after it became clear that other shareholders had received ‘dividends’. In his defence Kavendjii also acknowledged that he and Hengari had received loans from Petrotek, but said many other directors and shareholders had similarly received loans. He said those who had received loans were Kriaat Kamanya’s company Salute Trading (N$280 000), Tobie Aupindi (N$20 000), Chris Kaura (N$20 000), Elvis Nashilongo (N$20 000), Clive Kavendjii (N$25 000), Timoteus Angula (N$10 000), George de Jongh (N$20 000), Lazarus Kairabeb (N$35 000) and Juliet Kavetuna (N$27 000). ‘Petrotek has never had a single signatory to the bank account and the accusation that I mismanaged company funds is therefore bizarre to say the least. All loans are well documented in our books including the current audited financial statement and were duly co-signed by Mr Kamanya and me as duly appointed executive directors,’ said Kavendjii. One shareholder, however, said what the other directors and shareholders got were not loans, but payouts for their contributions to the company, adding that Petrotek has never had a dividend policy. The claim that other directors and shareholders did not get loans was vehemently contested by Kavendjii, who insisted that loans were granted by agreement between himself and Kamanya as executive directors. The only difference between the loans taken out by himself and Hengari, said Kavendjii, is that the two of them had made written commitments to repay the money. Tunga shareholder and Petrotek director Nashilongo yesterday also vehemently denied any allegations of tribalism within the company.Kavetuna yesterday said she pointed to tribalism in the company because of a remark by one shareholder that it was an all-Herero board meeting that had removed Nashilongo as signatory to an FNB company account in April. This is in fact one of the charges made against Kavendjii, that he forged signatures on a board resolution to remove Nashilongo as signatory to the FNB account. Nashilongo yesterday said Petrotek Namibia was shocked by an article which suggested that tribalism is tearing the company apart. In the first place, said Nashilongo, the governance structure of the company demonstrates that it has broad-based participation from people across the ethnic divide. He stressed that the decision to suspend Kavendjii was a ‘strategic intervention’ that had nothing to do with tribalism. The suspension, he added, was ‘for obvious reasons, including misappropriation of funds, self-dealing practice, lack of accountability, poor performance, etc.’. To illustrate that Petrotek is ‘tribal-free’, Nashilongo said the majority shareholding of Petrotek held by Tunga comprises of members from more than one ethnic group. He said despite the fact that Tunga has the majority shares – 44 per cent – its individual shareholders with less than 21 per cent shareholding have representation on the Petrotek board in favour of minority interests. ‘The group accused of tribalism condoned this abnormal structure even it if did not make meaningful business sense,’ Nashilongo maintained. ‘This group [the Tunga group] had faith and trust in the minority to direct business proceedings. However, our colleagues betrayed this trust by allowing mismanagement to prevail.’ According to him, all staff at Petrotek are in fact Herero speaking. ‘[We] did not see this because we do not have tribal eyes,’ Nashilongo said, and added: ‘[Tribalism] destroys nations, it cripples development, and brings wars. Those that are banking on public sympathy by justifying corruption through tribalism should be condemned.’ But, pointed out Kavendjii, in an answering affidavit to a High Court challenge over the board structure at Petrotek, Nashilongo makes repeated reference to Herero and Ovambo ‘factions’ among the shareholders. In fact, Nashilongo at one instance states that in 2011 ‘it became apparent to me that the shareholders of the company are divided in two factions; the Herero faction and the Ovambo faction’. There are also differing versions of the money invested by the various shareholders. Nashilongo said the minority shareholders ‘did not invest a cent’ into the operation of Petrotek, while Tunga has invested N$1,3 million in the company. Kavendjii contests this, saying Hengari had given N$1 million towards the containerisation of service stations project. Moreover, he said, for the contribution given by Tunga, other minority shareholders have in exchange given their shares.