Enormous legal bill needs clarity
A pressure group says the government should be more transparent about the astronomical legal fees paid to foreign-based lawyers for advice on the genocide negotiations.
The Action Namibia Coalition is demanding that the Namibian government play open cards and put to rest speculation about the huge fees paid to UK-based lawyers who advised Namibia on genocide reparation demands.
Although the exact amount remains uncertain, it was reported in various publications that the government had spent between N$32 million and N$37 million, and in some reports over N$40 million, for legal advice on the genocide negotiations.
Action Namibia, an umbrella organisation advocating for the passing of legislation guaranteeing access to information, said in a statement yesterday that the Namibian people “still have no idea what professional work was completed and delivered for such astronomical fees that were paid out of the national budget.”
Their statement argues that because of the reluctance to play open cards on the issue, speculation has thrived and only full disclosure and justification will put to rest the conjecture.
“Such speculation includes disturbing discrepancies between the various invoices, absences of clarity about time spent working on the case, questions about the numbers of hours and days worked and charging fees for administrative work such as booking tickets which could have been delegated to an assistant.”
The Coalition argues that full disclosure would also quell speculation of “untoward conduct” on any party's behalf.
It states that the government's decision to fork out enormous fees for foreign-based legal counsel, and their reluctance to answer relevant questions, is particularly bad form at a time when many Namibians have lost their jobs because of the government's non-payment of local service providers.
“This is a time when the government has cut budgets and introduced austerity measures in an attempt to relieve the state's financial stresses and to put the economy back on track. This is a time when far too many Namibians struggle to put food on the table,” it states.
The Coalition argues that Namibians deserve to be “told and need to know why it was not possible for Namibian legal counsel to attend to the research and advice sought and provided.”
They further argue that even South African legal experts would have been less costly, while many organisations “might well have been willing to assist with such an important and high-profile issue on a pro bono basis.”
And while attorney-general Sacky Shanghala addressed the issue of “exorbitant fees” in the National Assembly recently, too many critical questions remain unanswered.
In September, Shanghala explained that a Namibian lawyer based in the UK, Anna Uukelo, had been paid N$16 million. Three European advocates were paid N$14 million, N$385 401 and N$816 574.
The National Assembly was told that to date the case had cost the government N$32 million.
At the time, Shanghala refused to elaborate on the exact advice obtained.
The Action Namibia Coalition said that “one very pertinent” question remained.
“Why was it necessary to engage legal counsel in the United Kingdom when we have competent legal minds in Namibia? It has been reported that the Namibian lawyer based in the UK and her British colleagues have either no, or only limited, experience in international law,” the coalition pointed out.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Although the exact amount remains uncertain, it was reported in various publications that the government had spent between N$32 million and N$37 million, and in some reports over N$40 million, for legal advice on the genocide negotiations.
Action Namibia, an umbrella organisation advocating for the passing of legislation guaranteeing access to information, said in a statement yesterday that the Namibian people “still have no idea what professional work was completed and delivered for such astronomical fees that were paid out of the national budget.”
Their statement argues that because of the reluctance to play open cards on the issue, speculation has thrived and only full disclosure and justification will put to rest the conjecture.
“Such speculation includes disturbing discrepancies between the various invoices, absences of clarity about time spent working on the case, questions about the numbers of hours and days worked and charging fees for administrative work such as booking tickets which could have been delegated to an assistant.”
The Coalition argues that full disclosure would also quell speculation of “untoward conduct” on any party's behalf.
It states that the government's decision to fork out enormous fees for foreign-based legal counsel, and their reluctance to answer relevant questions, is particularly bad form at a time when many Namibians have lost their jobs because of the government's non-payment of local service providers.
“This is a time when the government has cut budgets and introduced austerity measures in an attempt to relieve the state's financial stresses and to put the economy back on track. This is a time when far too many Namibians struggle to put food on the table,” it states.
The Coalition argues that Namibians deserve to be “told and need to know why it was not possible for Namibian legal counsel to attend to the research and advice sought and provided.”
They further argue that even South African legal experts would have been less costly, while many organisations “might well have been willing to assist with such an important and high-profile issue on a pro bono basis.”
And while attorney-general Sacky Shanghala addressed the issue of “exorbitant fees” in the National Assembly recently, too many critical questions remain unanswered.
In September, Shanghala explained that a Namibian lawyer based in the UK, Anna Uukelo, had been paid N$16 million. Three European advocates were paid N$14 million, N$385 401 and N$816 574.
The National Assembly was told that to date the case had cost the government N$32 million.
At the time, Shanghala refused to elaborate on the exact advice obtained.
The Action Namibia Coalition said that “one very pertinent” question remained.
“Why was it necessary to engage legal counsel in the United Kingdom when we have competent legal minds in Namibia? It has been reported that the Namibian lawyer based in the UK and her British colleagues have either no, or only limited, experience in international law,” the coalition pointed out.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article