SSC dismissal case postponed

ONE of the casualties of the Social Security Commission’s botched N$30 million investment with Avid Investment Corporation last year, former senior SSC manager Gideon Mulder, faces a further month-long wait before the Windhoek District Labour Court hears a case in which he challenges his dismissal from the SSC.

Mulder and his lawyer, Coline Bazuin of GF Koepplinger Legal Practitioners, were in the Windhoek District Labour court yesterday for what they expected to be the start of the hearing of the complaint that Mulder lodged against the SSC. They and the SSC’s lawyer, Jefta Tjitemisa, however left the court with December 12 now confirmed as the date when the hearing should start.Tjitemisa told District Labour Court Chairperson Clement Daniels yesterday that although he and Bazuin’s colleague, Frank Koepplinger, had managed to arrange an earlier date than December 12, which was set when the court last postponed Mulder’s case, this new date did not suit the SSC and the witnesses that it planned to call.More than 10 witnesses could testify on the SSC’s behalf in the case, Tjitemisa said.He told Magistrate Daniels that he informed Koepplinger of this in a letter on August 29 already.Bazuin argued that Tjitemisa should then at least three days before yesterday have filed an application for the matter to be postponed.Mulder’s complaint against the SSC has been pending for 18 months; in that time not a word of testimony has been heard, while the matter has in the meantime repeatedly been postponed – each time at the SSC’s request, Bazuin told the Magistrate.From the correspondence that was exchanged between Tjitemisa and Koepplinger, it was clear that yesterday’s date had not been firmly agreed on between the two parties, Magistrate Daniels said when he ruled that the hearing of the case should start on December 12.He said he accepted Tjitemisa’s explanation that there had been a tentative agreement between him and Koepplinger, and that Tjitemisa however still first had to consult with his clients before he could be in a position to agree to the earlier hearing date.Magistrate Daniels asked both parties to ensure that the hearing starts as scheduled next month.Mulder, who was the SSC’s Manager: Corporate Finance before he was dismissed in May last year, is asking the court to order the SSC to reinstate him in the post and to pay him the salary he would have earned at the SSC from the time of his dismissal, or to order the SSC to give him a severance payout and compensate him for the losses he suffered as a result of his dismissal.Mulder is claiming that his dismissal was unfair.The disciplinary hearing that preceded his dismissal was marred by a number of irregularities, he claims.These include a refusal to allow him to arrange proper representation for himself for the hearing and a failure to provide him with documentation that he asked to be given in order to prepare for the hearing, Mulder claims.Mulder was one of the SSC officials involved in the SSC’s decision to invest N$30 million through an inexperienced asset management company, Avid Investment Corporation, early last year.Avid failed to repay the money when the investment was supposed to mature after four months.According to Mulder, he only investigated the promised terms of the investment, but did not ultimately recommend or approve the investment.That was done by his seniors at the SSC, he claims.They and the SSC’s lawyer, Jefta Tjitemisa, however left the court with December 12 now confirmed as the date when the hearing should start. Tjitemisa told District Labour Court Chairperson Clement Daniels yesterday that although he and Bazuin’s colleague, Frank Koepplinger, had managed to arrange an earlier date than December 12, which was set when the court last postponed Mulder’s case, this new date did not suit the SSC and the witnesses that it planned to call.More than 10 witnesses could testify on the SSC’s behalf in the case, Tjitemisa said.He told Magistrate Daniels that he informed Koepplinger of this in a letter on August 29 already.Bazuin argued that Tjitemisa should then at least three days before yesterday have filed an application for the matter to be postponed.Mulder’s complaint against the SSC has been pending for 18 months; in that time not a word of testimony has been heard, while the matter has in the meantime repeatedly been postponed – each time at the SSC’s request, Bazuin told the Magistrate.From the correspondence that was exchanged between Tjitemisa and Koepplinger, it was clear that yesterday’s date had not been firmly agreed on between the two parties, Magistrate Daniels said when he ruled that the hearing of the case should start on December 12.He said he accepted Tjitemisa’s explanation that there had been a tentative agreement between him and Koepplinger, and that Tjitemisa however still first had to consult with his clients before he could be in a position to agree to the earlier hearing date.Magistrate Daniels asked both parties to ensure that the hearing starts as scheduled next month.Mulder, who was the SSC’s Manager: Corporate Finance before he was dismissed in May last year, is asking the court to order the SSC to reinstate him in the post and to pay him the salary he would have earned at the SSC from the time of his dismissal, or to order the SSC to give him a severance payout and compensate him for the losses he suffered as a result of his dismissal.Mulder is claiming that his dismissal was unfair.The disciplinary hearing that preceded his dismissal was marred by a number of irregularities, he claims.These include a refusal to allow him to arrange proper representation for himself for the hearing and a failure to provide him with documentation that he asked to be given in order to prepare for the hearing, Mulder claims.Mulder was one of the SSC officials involved in the SSC’s decision to invest N$30 million through an inexperienced asset management company, Avid Investment Corporation, early last year.Avid failed to repay the money when the investment was supposed to mature after four months.According to Mulder, he only investigated the promised terms of the investment, but did not ultimately recommend or approve the investment.That was done by his seniors at the SSC, he claims.