EDITORIAL: Recusal is not a cloak for corruption
There’s a troubling pattern emerging in Namibia’s public institutions: ethics are treated as optional, and accountability is conveniently dodged with one magic word – recusal.
The latest example? The Namibian Institute of Pathology (NIP), where board chairperson Ingah Ekandjo is doing business with the very organisation she’s meant to oversee. Her private company reportedly secured a lucrative housing finance deal with NIP. And her defence? She excused herself from the boardroom when the deal was being discussed.
But let’s be clear: stepping outside while your colleagues approve a contract that benefits your business does not cleanse the act of conflict. It merely hides it from plain sight.
By virtue of her position, Ekandjo had access to confidential strategies, influence over direction and insight into the institution’s housing needs. Recusal doesn’t erase that.
This is not a first for Namibia. In 2009, the University of Namibia awarded a major contract to Hanganeni Emona, a company in which its then-council vice-chairperson Dr Ndeutala Angolo held shares. She, too, claimed to have recused herself. And just like today, that explanation was offered as though it were a full stop to all questions of ethics.
We must reject this trend – firmly and publicly. 'Recusal' is not a magical shield against scrutiny. It is not a substitute for accountability. And it certainly does not transform unethical conduct into acceptable practice.
If board members and high-ranking officials can engage in business with the entities they serve, we are opening the floodgates to institutionalised corruption. The public deserves better than this charade.
Namibia cannot keep preaching anti-corruption while tolerating these glaring contradictions. Leadership means choosing integrity even when it’s inconvenient. Anything less is a betrayal of public trust.
The latest example? The Namibian Institute of Pathology (NIP), where board chairperson Ingah Ekandjo is doing business with the very organisation she’s meant to oversee. Her private company reportedly secured a lucrative housing finance deal with NIP. And her defence? She excused herself from the boardroom when the deal was being discussed.
But let’s be clear: stepping outside while your colleagues approve a contract that benefits your business does not cleanse the act of conflict. It merely hides it from plain sight.
By virtue of her position, Ekandjo had access to confidential strategies, influence over direction and insight into the institution’s housing needs. Recusal doesn’t erase that.
This is not a first for Namibia. In 2009, the University of Namibia awarded a major contract to Hanganeni Emona, a company in which its then-council vice-chairperson Dr Ndeutala Angolo held shares. She, too, claimed to have recused herself. And just like today, that explanation was offered as though it were a full stop to all questions of ethics.
We must reject this trend – firmly and publicly. 'Recusal' is not a magical shield against scrutiny. It is not a substitute for accountability. And it certainly does not transform unethical conduct into acceptable practice.
If board members and high-ranking officials can engage in business with the entities they serve, we are opening the floodgates to institutionalised corruption. The public deserves better than this charade.
Namibia cannot keep preaching anti-corruption while tolerating these glaring contradictions. Leadership means choosing integrity even when it’s inconvenient. Anything less is a betrayal of public trust.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article