Renthia Kaimbi
TransNamib chief executive officer Desmond van Jaarsveld is accused of opposing a High Court application by company executive Alynsia Platt without consulting the company’s board, which had reportedly resolved to appoint the forensic investigator at the centre of the dispute.
Platt is challenging the appointment of Specialised Investigation Consultancy Services (SICS), which was awarded a N$500 000 contract to conduct a forensic investigation that resulted in eight disciplinary charges against her.
Board chairperson Esther McLeod stated she was not aware of Platt’s recent court challenge and that Van Jaarsveld opted to oppose the court application.
“We (current board) just came in and are unaware of the application because the issue comes from before our time. However, since I do not know what you’re talking about, I don’t think I can comment on it,” said McLeod.
Minister of works and transport Veikko Nekundi confirmed to the Windhoek Observer on Sunday that the TransNamib board of directors, although cited as the second respondents in the matter, was not consulted about Van Jaarsveld’s decision to oppose the application.
“They (board of directors) were not consulted, thus did not give approval,” Nekundi said.
He further indicated that should the court rule against TransNamib, Van Jaarsveld would be held accountable for the legal costs incurred in opposing the application.
In her court application, Platt argues that the investigation was completed before SICS was formally awarded the procurement contract, raising questions about whether TransNamib complied with the Public Procurement Act.
Van Jaarsveld has opposed the application in his capacity as TransNamib’s accounting officer. However, Nekundi’s confirmation that the board was neither consulted nor gave approval raises questions about the authority under which the opposition was instituted.
Platt is seeking an order directing any respondent opposing her application to pay the legal costs of the proceedings.
In his answering affidavit, Van Jaarsveld confirms that the board resolved to appoint a forensic investigator and that he signed the engagement documents with SICS on 21 July 2025.
He disputes Platt’s argument that the procurement was unlawful, saying the notice of award issued in April 2026 was a subsequent notification contemplated under section 55(8) of the Public Procurement Act.
According to court documents, SICS signed a Statement of Work on 21 July 2025, submitted an interim report on 11 September 2025 and completed its final report on 1 December 2025.
However, the formal Notice of Award of Procurement Contract, valued at N$500 000, was issued on 29 April 2026, signed by Van Jaarsveld on 30 April and acknowledged by SICS on 5 May 2026.
Platt argues that the investigation was conducted and completed before the formal procurement award was issued, and that the subsequent award could not retrospectively legalise the appointment.
She is asking the High Court to review and set aside SICS’s appointment and the procurement of additional investigation services, as well as declare the resulting investigation report unlawful and of no force or effect.
The investigation concerned alleged irregularities involving the lease and disposal of two TransNamib properties, Erf 353 in Lüderitz and Erf 439 in Windhoek, as well as alleged undisclosed private business interests.
The report forms the basis of eight disciplinary charges against Platt, including gross negligence, failure to comply with procedures and conflict of interest.
Van Jaarsveld argues that the absence of competitive bidding does not, on its own, establish that the procurement was unlawful.
He also maintains that invoking section 36 of the Public Procurement Act does not automatically establish that its requirements were met.
He further argued that any irregularity in procuring SICS would not automatically invalidate the investigation report or the disciplinary proceedings against Platt.
He maintained that the procurement of investigative services, the admissibility and weight of evidence, and the determination of disciplinary charges are separate issues.
Van Jaarsveld has also objected to the application on procedural grounds, arguing that SICS has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome but has not been cited as a party.
He is asking the High Court to dismiss Platt’s application with costs or, alternatively, limit the retrospective consequences of any order setting aside the appointment.
Platt’s legal challenge follows a ruling by disciplinary hearing chairperson Raywood Rukoro, who dismissed her application for disclosure of procurement documents and ruled that the legality of SICS’s appointment was not relevant to determining the disciplinary charges.
Platt maintains that the investigation report should not be used against her if the process through which it was obtained was unlawful.
Van Jaarsveld, however, told the Windhoek Observer that the board was informed about his decision to oppose the application.
“The matter was defended in accordance with the board-approved Delegation of Authority. The board was duly informed of the matter in accordance with the established internal reporting procedures,” he said.
The High Court is yet to determine the application.
