not be found. This has occurred in April 2004. Prof Hangula also pointed out in cross-examination that some of the documentation relating to the MPPA had been kept by Dr Riruako to the exclusion of the university management. He denied that he had ever seen the final forensic report and stated that this had only come to light shortly before the commencement of the when the lawyers for the media defendants had disclosed documentation provided to them by Dr Riruako. He was not able to shed light upon the payments made to Professors El Toukhey and Harris as these predated his tenure as Vice-Chancellor. He conceded that he did not follow up on the draft report after the meeting in June 2006, following the decision to re-imburse ACBF. He conceded that he did not make further inquiries to Dr Riruako or to other members of management concerning further steps to be taken in order to further investigate why the documentation could not be traced and what the transactions related to. Prof Hangula suspected that Dr Riruako’s grudge against UNAM had been the cause for his failure to provide the final report and documentation to management and for approaching Mr Kaaronda and thereafter assisting the lawyers for the media defendants in defending the defamation action. Prof Hangula conceded that the draft report had not been reported to the university council. He said that this was because at that stage only a draft had been provided and that it first needed to be finalised, as is stated in that report. But he confirmed that he did not direct inquiries for a final report. As to Ms Nyangove’s attempts to contact him, he confirmed that he was in northern Namibia at the time and that his phone may have then given a response that he was unreachable. He however denied that he had received an SMS text from Ms Nyangove. During his cross-examination he was requested to provide his cellphone number to the media defendants’ lawyers who said that there would be further investigation of that aspect. Nothing however came of that.
The question arises as to whether the allegations concerning the N$5 million which he said had been ‘suspiciously and dubiously paid back as stolen money’ and of financial maladministration within this context fall within the ambit of qualified privilege. Mr Coleman correctly points out that the statements contained in the letter concerning this allegation were false. The assertion of an independent confirmation of UNAM’s failure to account for approximately N$5 million was simply not true. There could have been no independent confirmation of that. Indeed, had Mr Kaaronda looked at the relevant portions of the report, he would not have found any statement to support the assertion of N$5 million being stolen money and not having been accounted for. Furthermore, the letter creates a false impression that despite the request of the Director of the MPPA programme and other staff members to have a forensic audit, the university management had instead chosen to pay back what was termed stolen money to a donor, thus imputing ulterior and improper motives for doing so on the part of UNAM management. This latter statement is of a serious nature. Mr Kaaronda himself stated that he had seen the forensic report and was certainly aware of its existence. It was thus misleading in the extreme to create the impression that a forensic investigation had not been conducted when requests had been directed to university management to do so, but that it had instead decided to pay N$5 million to the donor in question. Can it be said that statements made by Mr Kaaronda in his capacity as NUNW Secretary General concerning large scale financial maladministration and impropriety were germane to the privilege occasion? In my view, the answer is in the affirmative. UNAM’s employees are represented by recognised unions, including NANTU, affiliated to NUNW. As representatives of those employees, their recognised union (and its umbrella body to which it is affiliated) has a clear interest in financial maladministration and impropriety being investigated and addressed at the university which is publicly funded. Once it is accepted that the occasion is privileged and the matters raised germane to it, then it would follow that the defamatory statements in the letter are protected even though he had created a clearly misleading impression.