Public 'let down' on SME Bank matter
Sentiments are that the bank was badly managed with no consequences to those responsible for a shoddy job.
Sentiments expressed to the media over the proposed liquidation of the SME Bank are that the Bank of Namibia (BoN) has let the Namibian public down and that the court hearing currently under way over the liquidation is a “legal farce”.
“What possible plausible financial or moral justification can there be to compromise a government investment of over N$1.5 billion, hundreds of Namibian jobs and the livelihoods of the families they support in pursuit of an investment that was recoverable at the time?” questioned one reader.
This reader suggested that the BoN should have considered a “rehabilitation and corrective order” instead of first placing the SME Bank under curatorship and then applying for its liquidation.
“These options were never pursued but instead a take-over frenzy, first targeting the board and foreign employees but eventually jeopardising every Namibian and shareholder with an interest and stake in the bank, government included,” this sentiment goes.
The Namibian government, through the Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and SME Development, had capitalised the SME Bank with N$900 million at its inception in 2012.
Another reader, Marcus Shilongo, wrote that the BoN instead should have required evidence from the bank's directors and managers that the estimated missing N$200 million was a return on investment within 10 days of the maturity date.
In the absence of such information, Shilongo suggested, the BoN should have demanded that the shareholders of the SME Bank commit to repay that money.
“This could have been a simple process but BoN chose to do it differently because of their hidden agenda, which if the courts play into it, will be achieved,” Shilongo offered.
Yet another reader felt that “those chosen to lead” the SME Bank – Andrew Ndishishi and former board chairpersons of the bank, Frans Kapofi and George Simataa – “acted not only in bad faith but they have also neglected the national interest (to run the SME Bank for the benefit of the nation and small businesses in particular) and this negligence has led to a loss of work for about 200 Namibian employees and a loss of funds for ordinary customers”.
This reader accused the Namibian government of having retained controversial Zimbabwean banker Enock Kamushinda despite him having been blacklisted by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa.
Kamushinda is reported to be a close ally of Zimbabwe presidential couple Robert and Grace Mugabe.
According to the SME Bank 2015 annual report – the only annual report the bank has ever produced since it opened in December 2012 – Kamushinda was responsible for pioneering the “look East policy” for Zimbabwe and played a leading role in the so-called “indigenisation and empowerment in Zimbabwe”, both policies having had disastrous consequences for that country.
He was also involved in the establishment of the weekly Southern Times newspaper, published by Namzim Newspapers, a 50-50 joint venture between New Era Publication Corporation and Zimbabwe Newspapers for which the Namibian taxpayer so far has had to foot the bill.
Equally, the argument goes, when it was revealed that Kamushinda was blacklisted, the Namibian government “ran to change the shareholding” structure of the bank to “conceal the dirty name” of Kamushinda.
Kamushinda then had “disappeared” from the shareholding structure, but the Namibian government is accused of allowing him to stay on as a non-executive director and giving him free rein to fill all top positions with Zimbabweans.
Shareholding
According to the 2015 SME Bank annual report the agreed shareholders' agreement was that the Namibian government (holding 65% of shares), as per a cabinet decision, was to be represented by the Namibia Financing Trust (Pty) Ltd, an association not for gain.
Kamushinda's Metbank Ltd on 9 October 2013 had voluntarily resigned as shareholder of the SME Bank, stating that it wished to be a “technical partner”. This resignation was accepted by the Bank of Namibia (BoN) on 4 June 2014.
On 19 September 2014, Metbank Ltd. applied to the BoN to be reinstated as shareholder (for 30% shareholding), which the BoN approved on 21 July 2015 after having conducted a “fitness and probity test”.
This, however, meant that by 28 February 2015 the share certificates were not issued.
Five percent of the shares were held by WorldEagle Investment (Pty) Limited.
Fundamental to what went wrong, an expert in the banking sector preferring anonymity said, was why the SME Bank was given a banking licence without share certificates.
He questioned what happened to the money earmarked for the SME Bank and why the Financial Intelligence Centre did not pick up on the transfers to South Africa in September 2016.
Asked why it had approved a banking licence for the SME Bank without share certificates, the BoN's deputy director of corporate communications, Kazembire Zemburuka, responded that a share certificate was not a prerequisite for the approval of a banking licence.
CATHERINE SASMAN
“What possible plausible financial or moral justification can there be to compromise a government investment of over N$1.5 billion, hundreds of Namibian jobs and the livelihoods of the families they support in pursuit of an investment that was recoverable at the time?” questioned one reader.
This reader suggested that the BoN should have considered a “rehabilitation and corrective order” instead of first placing the SME Bank under curatorship and then applying for its liquidation.
“These options were never pursued but instead a take-over frenzy, first targeting the board and foreign employees but eventually jeopardising every Namibian and shareholder with an interest and stake in the bank, government included,” this sentiment goes.
The Namibian government, through the Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and SME Development, had capitalised the SME Bank with N$900 million at its inception in 2012.
Another reader, Marcus Shilongo, wrote that the BoN instead should have required evidence from the bank's directors and managers that the estimated missing N$200 million was a return on investment within 10 days of the maturity date.
In the absence of such information, Shilongo suggested, the BoN should have demanded that the shareholders of the SME Bank commit to repay that money.
“This could have been a simple process but BoN chose to do it differently because of their hidden agenda, which if the courts play into it, will be achieved,” Shilongo offered.
Yet another reader felt that “those chosen to lead” the SME Bank – Andrew Ndishishi and former board chairpersons of the bank, Frans Kapofi and George Simataa – “acted not only in bad faith but they have also neglected the national interest (to run the SME Bank for the benefit of the nation and small businesses in particular) and this negligence has led to a loss of work for about 200 Namibian employees and a loss of funds for ordinary customers”.
This reader accused the Namibian government of having retained controversial Zimbabwean banker Enock Kamushinda despite him having been blacklisted by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa.
Kamushinda is reported to be a close ally of Zimbabwe presidential couple Robert and Grace Mugabe.
According to the SME Bank 2015 annual report – the only annual report the bank has ever produced since it opened in December 2012 – Kamushinda was responsible for pioneering the “look East policy” for Zimbabwe and played a leading role in the so-called “indigenisation and empowerment in Zimbabwe”, both policies having had disastrous consequences for that country.
He was also involved in the establishment of the weekly Southern Times newspaper, published by Namzim Newspapers, a 50-50 joint venture between New Era Publication Corporation and Zimbabwe Newspapers for which the Namibian taxpayer so far has had to foot the bill.
Equally, the argument goes, when it was revealed that Kamushinda was blacklisted, the Namibian government “ran to change the shareholding” structure of the bank to “conceal the dirty name” of Kamushinda.
Kamushinda then had “disappeared” from the shareholding structure, but the Namibian government is accused of allowing him to stay on as a non-executive director and giving him free rein to fill all top positions with Zimbabweans.
Shareholding
According to the 2015 SME Bank annual report the agreed shareholders' agreement was that the Namibian government (holding 65% of shares), as per a cabinet decision, was to be represented by the Namibia Financing Trust (Pty) Ltd, an association not for gain.
Kamushinda's Metbank Ltd on 9 October 2013 had voluntarily resigned as shareholder of the SME Bank, stating that it wished to be a “technical partner”. This resignation was accepted by the Bank of Namibia (BoN) on 4 June 2014.
On 19 September 2014, Metbank Ltd. applied to the BoN to be reinstated as shareholder (for 30% shareholding), which the BoN approved on 21 July 2015 after having conducted a “fitness and probity test”.
This, however, meant that by 28 February 2015 the share certificates were not issued.
Five percent of the shares were held by WorldEagle Investment (Pty) Limited.
Fundamental to what went wrong, an expert in the banking sector preferring anonymity said, was why the SME Bank was given a banking licence without share certificates.
He questioned what happened to the money earmarked for the SME Bank and why the Financial Intelligence Centre did not pick up on the transfers to South Africa in September 2016.
Asked why it had approved a banking licence for the SME Bank without share certificates, the BoN's deputy director of corporate communications, Kazembire Zemburuka, responded that a share certificate was not a prerequisite for the approval of a banking licence.
CATHERINE SASMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article