The question arises as to whether the allegations concerning the N$5 million which he said had been and dubiously paid back as stolen ‘suspiciously 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.
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.
University%20of%20Namibia%20v%20Kaaronda%20(I%201838-2010)%20[2012]%20NAHCMD%20221%20(23%20July%202014).docx