New twist in NUST VC saga

STAFF REPORTER



WINDHOEK

Professor Frednard Gideon’s legal team is challenging the Namibia University of Science and Technology’s (NUST) decision to allegedly ignore key indicators during the recruitment process for the university’s vice chairperson position, which was eventually given to Dr Erold Naomab.

Gideon, who is pushing for the Naomab’s appointment to be declared illegal, was one of the contenders for the N$2.3 million per year job at the country’s second largest tertiary institution.

In an affidavit filed last week in the High Court, Gideon claimed he would have been the successful candidate if all criteria were followed.

The latest affidavit came after Gideon successfully made an application to compel NUST to produce documents related to the disputed recruitment process.

The university had initially appointed Heidrick and Struggles to run the process before aborting it. Upon its restart, a company called Capacity Trust was contracted.

Gideon accused NUST council chairperson Florette Nakusera of relying on Heidrick and Struggles’ background check and psychometric test, adding that using different psychometric batteries in 2018/19 during the aborted recruitment process was not applicable in the succeeding process.

Skewed process

“While the psychometric test assessment was carried out fairly, the background check was vitiated by a skewed process against me,” he said.

He also claimed some of his listed references were not contacted during the background checks.

“I have already elaborated on the unfairness and irrationality in regard to the exclusion of Mr Sam Shivute’s report on the background checks, and the fact that the first and third respondents proceeded with the appointment when Capacity Trust was still awaiting professor Lazarus Hangula’s report, one of my selected referees,” he said.

He added that two of his other references were not contacted at all.

Gideon also said a skewed recording was made of the psychometric assessment.

During the recruitment process, it was found that Naomab’s performance was rated highly while Gideon was ranked moderate to high for the psychometric assessment on the competency fit.

On integrity, Gideon was rated high, while Naomab was rated low.

“High integrity was one of the important requirements and attributes. To now ignore my good and better rating on integrity ahead of the fifth respondent (Naomab) is irrational and grossly unfair,” he argued.