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.
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.
University%20of%20Namibia%20v%20Kaaronda%20(I%201838-2010)%20[2012]%20NAHCMD%20221%20(23%20July%202014).docx