Renthia Kaimbi
Court papers allege that the company later awarded the N$122 million veterinary cordon fencing contract through emergency procurement was already on the project site two days before the award was formally issued, deepening controversy surrounding the tender process.
The urgent High Court application by China Jiangxi International (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd JV Homefin Properties CC alleges that personnel from Punchu Trading CC JV China State Construction Engineering Co. Southern Africa were on site as early as 5 September, while the Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN) only formally awarded the contract to the joint venture on 7 September.
The applicant further alleges that a CPBN board member, Immanuel Kambinda, accompanied Punchu JV CSCESA personnel to the project area.
The allegations are contained in a founding affidavit by Albertina Mutota, manager of Homefin Properties CC, one of the partners in the joint venture that had initially been selected for the contract.
According to Mutota, two photographs attached to the application show Punchu JV CSCESA personnel at the project site.
“A member of the CPBN, Immanuel Kambinda, attended the site with Punchu JV CSCESA. He is pictured wearing blue jeans, safety boots and white shirt with CPBN logo/insignia,” she alleges.
The court papers describe the alleged conduct as evidence of possible coordination between the procurement board and Punchu JV CSCESA.
“The brazenness is alarming; it smacks of coordination between the CPBN and Punchu JV CSCESA,” Mutota states.
The allegations have not been tested in court or independently verified.
The application follows the CPBN’s abrupt cancellation of a competitive procurement process for the construction of 185 kilometres of veterinary cordon fencing along the South African border.
On 18 August, the CPBN issued a notice of selection for the procurement award naming China Jiangxi International JV Homefin as the successful bidder at N$126 373 500.07.
The statutory seven-day standstill period subsequently elapsed without an unsuccessful bidder seeking reconsideration, according to the court papers.
However, on 3 September, the CPBN issued a notice of intention to cancel the procurement under Section 54(1)(g) of the Public Procurement Act, stating that the process “does not create or achieve the expected outcome”.
Bidders were given until 4 September at 17h00 to submit representations.
CJIN JV Homefin submitted its representations on 4 September, arguing that the cancellation grounds were “tenuous, absent any facts” and that there was no impediment to awarding the contract.
The applicant alleges that on the same day, the CPBN board resolved to proceed with an emergency procurement under Section 33 of the Act and award the contract to Punchu JV CSCESA.
On 7 September, the CPBN formally notified bidders that the original procurement had been cancelled and simultaneously issued a notification of award to Punchu JV CSCESA for N$122 088 331.88.
The applicant takes particular issue with the effective date of the cancellation.
The CPBN’s notice stated that the cancellation took effect from 3 September, despite the fact that bidders were only invited to make representations by 4 September.
“The CPBN, in fact cancelled the bidding process before it requested for representations from the bidders as to why it should not cancel the bidding process,” Mutota states.
She describes the invitation for representations as “a sham”.
The application also questions why Punchu JV CSCESA was selected through emergency procurement after participating unsuccessfully in the original competitive process.
Mutota argues that its selection was irrational and unfair, particularly because the company was not evaluated as the lowest evaluated substantially responsive bidder in the original process.
“The award of the procurement to Punchu JV CSCESA in circumstances where its bid had not been evaluated as the lowest evaluated substantially responsive bid at the same price that it had initially bid is mind-boggling, irrational, unjustified and unfair,” she states.
The applicant argues that the CPBN’s actions violated Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution, which provides for fair and reasonable administrative action, as well as the principles underpinning the Public Procurement Act, including transparency, competition, fairness and value for money.
It further argues that the CPBN’s failure to properly consider its representations before cancelling the procurement was fatal to the decision.
“The CPBN acted contrary to the objects of the Public Procurement Act, arbitrarily and capriciously, when it flagrantly flouted and circumvented fair procedure to obtain an unlawful outcome,” the affidavit states.
CJIN JV Homefin also places its own capacity and track record before the court, arguing that it has the financial and technical ability to execute the project.
China Jiangxi International (Namibia), which has operated in Namibia since 2005, is described in the papers as a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned enterprise with projects in more than 20 countries.
The company has undertaken numerous construction projects in Namibia, including the new directorate of civil aviation offices.
Homefin Properties CC has also operated in the Namibian construction sector for more than a decade and has completed projects including the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund headquarters.
The joint venture is currently executing the N$91 million Outapi Water Treatment Works Extension and Upgrade project for NamWater, according to the affidavit.
The applicant is asking the High Court to interdict Punchu JV CSCESA from accepting or implementing the award and to restrain the CPBN from concluding a contract with the joint venture pending the finalisation of internal reconsideration and review proceedings.
The urgency of the application is partly based on the applicant’s allegation that Punchu JV CSCESA has seven days within which to accept the award and that the company is likely to move quickly to conclude the contract.
“Judging by Puncu JV CSCESA’s personnel’s presence on the site for the procurement as far back as 5 September 2026, Puncu JV CSCESA will certainly accept the offer for the procurement of the award and seek to expedite the conclusion of the contract,” Mutota states.
The applicant’s lawyers, Appolos Shimakeleni Lawyers, had already approached the CPBN on 7 September seeking reconsideration of both the cancellation and emergency award.
Shimakeleni demanded confirmation that no procurement of the same contract would be pursued other than through a competitive process.
The court papers state that no response or undertaking was received, prompting the urgent application.
The matter is scheduled to be heard in the High Court of Namibia on 17 September at 09h00.
The respondents are expected to indicate their intention to oppose by 12 September, with answering affidavits due on 14 September and the applicant’s replying affidavit on 15 September.
The case has implications for public procurement, particularly over the circumstances in which a competitively awarded tender can be cancelled and subsequently re-awarded through emergency procurement.
It has also put the spotlight on the conduct of CPBN officials, following the allegation that a board member was present at the project site with personnel of the company that would later receive the emergency award.
The veterinary cordon fence project is intended to strengthen Namibia’s protection against transboundary animal diseases, including Foot-and-Mouth Disease, and has implications for the country’s livestock sector and agricultural exports.
