State unmasks Nghipunya proxies
The State yesterday produced memorandums of understanding showing how much money Mike Nghipunya is entitled to from entities that allegedly benefitted from Fishrot, although he is not officially registered as owner.
JEMIMA BEUKES
WINDHOEK
State prosecutors yesterday produced documents detailing Mike Nghipunya’s silent interest in entities that benefitted millions of dollars from the Fishrot scandal.
His perceived proxies in these companies, Phillipus Mwapopi and Otneel Shuudifonya, are in custody awaiting trial in the same case.
During yesterday’s proceedings of Nghipunya’s bail application, it came to light from a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that Nghipunya held a 50% silent interest in a company called Wanakadu Investments, on paper solely owned by Mwapopi.
When it comes to profit and revenue sharing, Nghipunya is entitled to money made by the company, the MoU shows.
The MoU, which the State presented to the court, stipulated that “Mwapopi hereby agrees not to claim ownership in part or whole of other funds transferred to the company account from time to time, thereby recognising that such funds are not for day-to-day operations revenue of the company, but belonging to Nghipunya”.
It further read: “Nghipunya agrees not to take ownership in part or whole of operation revenue of the company as that would be shared on a 50/50 basis whenever distributed.”
According to court documents, this MoU was signed in 2016, the same year in which Wanakadu supplied Fishcor with dried fish.
However, Nghipunya said he first started dealing with the company when Mwapopi engaged him to express his interest to supply Fishcor with dried fish products, and in doing business in other areas.
“I have known Mr Mwapopi for a while, dating back to 2010; we have known each other on a social level before 2016. We would meet, we would have mutual friends and that is how far I know him. I would not say we are friends. I have no interests in Wanakadu,” he said, despite the content of the MoU produced in court.
Deny, deny, deny
State advocate Cliff Lutibezi informed the court that an MoU between Nghipunya and Mwapopi was printed from a desktop computer which belonged to Nghipunya.
Recent Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) documents showed that Wanakadu paid N$3.1 million to Flamingo In-Flight Catering, a company owned by former Fishcor board chairman James Hatuikulipi, himself an accused in the matter.
During yesterday’s proceedings, the State also brought to court a statement obtained under oath from Kelvin Kaisi, the managing director of Flamingo, who said Hatuikulipi instructed him to make two payments from their Bank Windhoek cheque account.
Of this money, N$2.1 million was paid to Greyguard Investments, a company owned by Hatuikulipi, while the remaining N$1.05 million was paid to Erf 1980 Kuisebmund.
Nghipunya then vehemently denied that he signed any agreement and instead accused the State of trying to find any chance to link him to certain activities by saying the money went to “my co-accused without pinning me to any of those misappropriations”.
He also pointed out that there is no proof that this agreement with Mwapopi was authored or signed by him, since his signature was missing while the same device from which the agreement was printed contained his electronic signature.
“So, anyone who goes on my computer can forge my signature, but not my handwriting in person. Hence the date was left blank, because they cannot electronically sign or write those words,” he said.
‘Financial engineering agreement’
The State put it to Nghipunya that he would recall a N$10 million payment was made to Fine Seafood Investment Trust, who made transfers to Ndjako Investments CC, which purchased assets on his behalf.
These entities are owned by Shuudifonya. Namibian Sun reported in January that Shuudifonya, Otjozondjupa regional council deputy director for rural services, could not explain how his companies received about N$13 million from Fishrot proceeds.
He has been perceived as a front for Nghipunya, who injected N$1.3 million capital into Fine Seafood. Shuudifonya told ACC investigators that the money was a loan from Nghipunya, which he was obliged to pay back.
Nghipunya yesterday testified that he had no interests in these entities (Fine Seafood and Ndjako) and said there is in fact an explanation for these transactions.
A separate MoU was read in court by State prosecutors, detailing what Nghipunya was entitled to in terms of revenues generated by Ndjako.
According to him, there was an agreement that these two companies would invest in an Angolan project and also co-invest in property development and finance.
“If the properties are in my name, it is to say I hold the property in trust because of access to funds, so if I take out a loan, I take it on behalf of the trust and once the company has paid the loan, the property will be paid to the trust. It is not because they paid assets on behalf of me,” he said.
According to him, this is all above board and is just a ‘financial engineering agreement,’ and had nothing to do with interest held in the companies.
“It is not my trust; it is a trust where I was a trustee.”
The bail hearing continues.
[email protected]
WINDHOEK
State prosecutors yesterday produced documents detailing Mike Nghipunya’s silent interest in entities that benefitted millions of dollars from the Fishrot scandal.
His perceived proxies in these companies, Phillipus Mwapopi and Otneel Shuudifonya, are in custody awaiting trial in the same case.
During yesterday’s proceedings of Nghipunya’s bail application, it came to light from a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that Nghipunya held a 50% silent interest in a company called Wanakadu Investments, on paper solely owned by Mwapopi.
When it comes to profit and revenue sharing, Nghipunya is entitled to money made by the company, the MoU shows.
The MoU, which the State presented to the court, stipulated that “Mwapopi hereby agrees not to claim ownership in part or whole of other funds transferred to the company account from time to time, thereby recognising that such funds are not for day-to-day operations revenue of the company, but belonging to Nghipunya”.
It further read: “Nghipunya agrees not to take ownership in part or whole of operation revenue of the company as that would be shared on a 50/50 basis whenever distributed.”
According to court documents, this MoU was signed in 2016, the same year in which Wanakadu supplied Fishcor with dried fish.
However, Nghipunya said he first started dealing with the company when Mwapopi engaged him to express his interest to supply Fishcor with dried fish products, and in doing business in other areas.
“I have known Mr Mwapopi for a while, dating back to 2010; we have known each other on a social level before 2016. We would meet, we would have mutual friends and that is how far I know him. I would not say we are friends. I have no interests in Wanakadu,” he said, despite the content of the MoU produced in court.
Deny, deny, deny
State advocate Cliff Lutibezi informed the court that an MoU between Nghipunya and Mwapopi was printed from a desktop computer which belonged to Nghipunya.
Recent Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) documents showed that Wanakadu paid N$3.1 million to Flamingo In-Flight Catering, a company owned by former Fishcor board chairman James Hatuikulipi, himself an accused in the matter.
During yesterday’s proceedings, the State also brought to court a statement obtained under oath from Kelvin Kaisi, the managing director of Flamingo, who said Hatuikulipi instructed him to make two payments from their Bank Windhoek cheque account.
Of this money, N$2.1 million was paid to Greyguard Investments, a company owned by Hatuikulipi, while the remaining N$1.05 million was paid to Erf 1980 Kuisebmund.
Nghipunya then vehemently denied that he signed any agreement and instead accused the State of trying to find any chance to link him to certain activities by saying the money went to “my co-accused without pinning me to any of those misappropriations”.
He also pointed out that there is no proof that this agreement with Mwapopi was authored or signed by him, since his signature was missing while the same device from which the agreement was printed contained his electronic signature.
“So, anyone who goes on my computer can forge my signature, but not my handwriting in person. Hence the date was left blank, because they cannot electronically sign or write those words,” he said.
‘Financial engineering agreement’
The State put it to Nghipunya that he would recall a N$10 million payment was made to Fine Seafood Investment Trust, who made transfers to Ndjako Investments CC, which purchased assets on his behalf.
These entities are owned by Shuudifonya. Namibian Sun reported in January that Shuudifonya, Otjozondjupa regional council deputy director for rural services, could not explain how his companies received about N$13 million from Fishrot proceeds.
He has been perceived as a front for Nghipunya, who injected N$1.3 million capital into Fine Seafood. Shuudifonya told ACC investigators that the money was a loan from Nghipunya, which he was obliged to pay back.
Nghipunya yesterday testified that he had no interests in these entities (Fine Seafood and Ndjako) and said there is in fact an explanation for these transactions.
A separate MoU was read in court by State prosecutors, detailing what Nghipunya was entitled to in terms of revenues generated by Ndjako.
According to him, there was an agreement that these two companies would invest in an Angolan project and also co-invest in property development and finance.
“If the properties are in my name, it is to say I hold the property in trust because of access to funds, so if I take out a loan, I take it on behalf of the trust and once the company has paid the loan, the property will be paid to the trust. It is not because they paid assets on behalf of me,” he said.
According to him, this is all above board and is just a ‘financial engineering agreement,’ and had nothing to do with interest held in the companies.
“It is not my trust; it is a trust where I was a trustee.”
The bail hearing continues.
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article