Renthia Kaimbi
Eight active Namibian police officers, including warrant officers and sergeants, were falsely presented as employees and managers of a security company that won a N$40 million tender to guard the Namibia University of Science and Technology (Nust), according to court filings submitted to the High Court.
The allegations form part of a review application lodged by PIS Security Services CC, the incumbent security provider that lost the three-year contract to Novo Security Services CC.
The tender, valued at N$40 million, was awarded in October 2025 following a procurement process overseen by the Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN).
In founding and replying affidavits sworn on 15 May 2026, Sebulon Hangula, a member of PIS Security Services, attached a letter from suspended Namibian police inspector general Joseph Shikongo dated 6 March 2026.
That letter confirms that eight individuals whose curriculum vitae were submitted as part of Novo’s bid are in fact active members of the police force.
According to Shikongo’s correspondence, warrant officer Daniel Ausiku has served since 20 February 2002, warrant officer Petrus Shipanga since 1 April 2010, sergeant Sabecious Sinjala since 1 April 2010, sergeant Andreas Silas since 1 July 2014, sergeant Johanna Ilonga since 13 May 2012, sergeant Frank Mowa since 1 July 2015, constable Stefanus Shawapala since 1 September 2019 and constable Kandetu Nashimba since 1 July 2014.
Hangula’s affidavit alleges that Novo Security Services submitted CVs falsely claiming these individuals were employed by Novo in various capacities.
Shipanga was listed as security manager from 2019 to date, Sinjala as investigations and training manager, Nashimba as a clerk employed from 2021, Mowa as lead security officer from 2019 and others as security guards.
The court papers include copies of the CVs, each initialled by Novo’s authorised representative, showing employment start dates that predate Novo’s own registration in August 2019.
“The authorised representative of the fourth respondent (Novo) initialled each of those CVs despite his knowledge that Messrs Shipanga and Simanga were not employees of the fourth respondent,” Hangula states in the founding affidavit.
The inspector general’s letter directly contradicts the employment claims made in Novo’s bid documents.
The irregularities, according to the applicant, go beyond personnel misrepresentations.
Hangula pointed to reference letters submitted by Novo, claiming security services were rendered to Build-it Okahandja from 1 November 2018 and to Spar in Omuthiya from 2 January 2018.
Novo Security Services registered as a close corporation in August 2019, approximately 18 months after the dates.
The founding statement from the Business and Intellectual Property Authority (Bipa) confirms the registration date of 6 August 2019, with Gideon Tweeni Petrus listed as the sole member holding 100% ownership.
An amended founding statement from 27 May 2025, also attached to the replying affidavit, revealed that Petrus is no longer a member at all.
According to Bipa records, the sole member is now George Muyongo Wapota, holding 100% ownership.
This has led the applicant to accuse Petrus of misleading the court when he deposed to an answering affidavit in October 2025, describing himself as “the sole and managing member of the 4th Respondent”.
The scoring of Novo’s bid is another focal point of the challenge. According to the bidding document’s evaluation criteria, experience in services of a similar nature and size was required.
The contract contemplated 114 guards, yet Novo’s Social Security Commission records attached to the court papers show only 31 employees.
Despite this, Hangula alleges the CPBN scored Novo 20 out of 20 for experience, when a proper application of the criteria would have yielded zero out of 20.
“The first respondent (CPBN) does not understand the nature of the issues raised on review related to misrepresentations,” Hangula states in the replying affidavit.
“The issues are not that the First Respondent dictated any misrepresentations. The actual issues are that the Fourth Respondent made a number of misrepresentations for the purpose of complying with the evaluation criteria and receiving scores at evaluation to which, but for the misrepresentations, the Fourth Respondent was not entitled to receive.”
The CPBN, represented by chairperson Mary Shiimi in her answering affidavit, has denied any wrongdoing.
Shiimi stated that the evaluation process was “lawful, fair, consistent and intra vires the Procurement Act and its regulations”.
She contends that Novo’s bid was duly evaluated in accordance with prescribed criteria, achieved a score above the required 70% threshold, and was deemed responsive.
Regarding the police officers, Shiimi argued that the inspector general is not joined to the proceedings and that the review panel’s decision of 26 September 2025 found the allegations of fraudulent reference letters to be “not substantiated”.
Shiimi also claimed that the bidding document did not require at least three years of experience, explaining that while more experience leads to higher scores in the technical evaluation, not having enough experience does not automatically disqualify a bidder.
She also contended that bidders only needed to demonstrate commitment and capacity, not the full complement of 114 guards at bid closing.
Novo Security Services, in its answering affidavit deposed by Gideon Petrus on 27 April 2026, takes the position that the individuals listed on CVs were included on a “prospective basis” in anticipation of a possible future appointment if the bid was successful.
Petrus stated that following the award, Novo exercised its discretion and elected not to appoint these individuals, instead hiring personnel previously employed by the applicant.
“To the extent that certain curriculum vitae may reflect that such individuals were associated with the 4th Respondent, I clarify that these individuals were included on a prospective basis, in anticipation of possible appointment, and any such references must be understood in that context,” Petrus stated in the answering affidavit.
Regarding the reference letters that predate Novo’s registration, Petrus explains that services to Build-it Okahandja and Omuthiya were performed by him “prior to the registration of the 4th respondent, whilst I operated as a sole trader in the security services sector”.
He claims the experience was carried into the business upon registration.
The contract between the CPBN, Nust and Novo Security Services was signed on 11 December 2025. According to Novo’s answering affidavit, the company received a notice to commence services on 26 March 2026 and began providing security services on 1 April 2026.
Novo states it has since employed approximately 160 security personnel and incurred expenditures of around N$292 125 on uniforms, communication equipment, security equipment and other operational necessities.
The applicant contends that the court should prohibit the continued execution of the contract until the review application concludes.
“The fourth respondent did not even have employees and acted in a predatory manner by taking over the applicant’s employees,” Hangula stated.
He alleges that on 1 April 2026, a representative of the third respondent (Nust) arrived at the pick-up and drop-off point where the applicant’s security employees were gathered and told them that anyone wishing to continue working must put on Novo’s uniform.
Attached to the replying papers is a confirmatory affidavit from Victor Nakwafila, a senior supervisor employed by the applicant, supporting this account.
The applicant’s legal representatives have given the CPBN seven days from 26 March 2026 to take debarment proceedings against Novo, threatening to bring a mandamus application requiring the CPBN to take steps the law directs.
The CPBN, however, has maintained that the continued occupation of Nust premises by PIS constitutes “unlawful self-help”, as there is no court order authorising them to remain on site.
An earlier urgent application for interim relief was struck from the roll on 21 November 2025, with High Court judge Andrew Corbett finding that the applicant had failed to comply with rule 73 requirements and that the timeframe set by the applicant, requiring respondents to indicate intention to oppose within hours and file answering papers within days, was “unachievable” and “disquieting”.
The court found the procedure adopted ignored principles of urgent applications and violated fundamental principles of the right to a fair hearing.
The substantive review application now seeks to set aside the award entirely, with the applicant arguing that a party that should have been disqualified and that committed fraud when competing for the bid should not be permitted to continue implementing the contract.
The applicant further seeks an order remitting the bid to the CPBN for re-evaluation in accordance with the bidding documents.
