Prof Gideon details frustration in court appeal

OGONE TLHAGE

WINDHOEK



Professor Frednard Gideon has approached the High Court to challenge the appointment of Dr Erold Naomab as vice-chancellor of the Namibia University of Science and Technology (Nust).

Namoab and Gideon had both applied for the position.

Naomab's appointment was announced last week by council chairperson Florette Nakusera.

Gideon has brought an urgent court application to stop Naomab from taking office in January 2021, arguing that he was overlooked despite performing better in the job interviews. Nakusera had recently explained the Nust council's decision in an interview on Namibian Sun's 'Evening Review' programme. Nakusera's responses was unsatisfactory, Gideon argues in court papers.

“I personally watched the video depicting the press briefing by her [Nakusera] and her answering the questions by the media on 13 November. In particular she did not deny the fact that I came out as the overall and combined best ranked candidate with the quantitative combined ranking of 68% as opposed to the fifth respondent [Naomab] with 64%,” Gideon states in his court application.

Gideon further claims that a background check of him was done in an unfair, irrational and unlawful manner.

Gideon also claims that he has better qualifications, experience and skills than Naomab and that he outranks Naomab at the University of Namibia.









“The fifth respondent [Naomab] reports to me in terms of the management echelon of the University of Namibia at which we work,” his court papers state.



Appointment rushed

Gideon questioned the haste with which Naomab's appointment was made and argues that he has to file an urgent court application to stop the appointment.

“I would be reckless to my own fate if I fail to bring an interim relief in view of the fact that the appointment of the fifth respondent and his stay in office would be committed to five years only. If the fifth respondent starts working, he will start programmes, plans and other undertakings which will make it difficult for the court to set aside the decision,” Gideon argues.

“There is the concerning and unusual urgency and speed being used by the concerned respondents to fast track the process. I suspect that this was being done before I was informed of the outcome of the recruitment process only on 19 November 2020 in order to prejudice me and to make it difficult to reverse the first respondent's appointmen,” Gideon states.