• What happened to the Tuhafeni Hangula case?
GERARD Vries, the deputy registrar of the Polytechnic of Namibia verified and confirmed the fake matric certificate on May 26, 2011 in the presence of the Namibian Police and that there was no Junior Certificate (Grade 10) until May 26, 2011 and that the only certificate submitted by Tuhafeni Hangula during the registration was the fake certificate without the signatures from the directorate of education, and this was during the third and the last year of his studies.
Vries on numerous occasions wrote letters to Tuhafeni Hangula to provide the original matric certificate, since the one submitted by him was questionable. The argument advanced by the Polytechnic of Namibia is to cover corruption. There is no way they could have justified Hangula’s mature age entry. What are the other schemes that Nico Smit of the PoN is talking about?
According to the PoN website, “Prospective applicants who do not meet normal admission requirements, but have at least a junior certificate or equivalent qualification, may in the spirit of lifelong learning and redressing past disadvantage, apply for admission through the mature age entry scheme.”
It further says that such applicants should be older than 23 on January 1 of the year in which they want to start studying. Further, they should normally have completed their full-time schooling or college education at least three years before the academic year for which admission is being sought.
Why did the Polytechnic not disclose such important information to the public at large and to other students struggling to get admission? Tuhafeni Hangula did not submit his junior certificate until his third and last year and thus the admission could not be changed to mature age. Tuhafeni Hangula wrote the mature age test but submitted a false matric certificate for registration.
This is a matter of a criminal inquiry the CR number being (CR 847/6/11) and Polytechnic of Namibia can at its best try to cover its image and credibility but the fact remains that Tuhafeni Hangula aimed at misleading the institution and in fact, he did it successfully.
Dr Tjama Tjivikua, the PoN Rector, what happened and what answers do you have to encourage the future of other struggling students?
Advocate Danie Small in the Office of the Prosecutor-General said the matter is on the roll and Tuhafeni Hangula is not guilty yet. We want to know as the public when will he be brought to justice? When will he appear before a court of law and what is the court case number?
Article 1(6) of the Namibian Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Law of Namibia is the Constitution and according to the fundamental Rights within the Constitution, “We are equal before the Law”, but in my opinion, Tuhafeni Hangula is above the law and is therefore not “equal before the law”.
Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, Hon. Erastus Uutoni revealed that over 160 members of the Namibian Police have been fired between January and July this year and 25 others remain suspended for indiscipline.
I respectfully remind the Hon. Minister to look into the case No CR 847/6/11 and take action. It is very unfair and the Minister should act in the interest of the public.
This is a clear demonstration of abuse of process and reckless disregard to the Constitution of Namibia on the part of the Commissioner-General, Mr Evaristo Shikongo, who has turned a blind eye to the Tuhafeni Hangula saga.
Article 122(2) of the Namibian Constitution says that the Commissioner-General has a responsibility “to cause charges of indiscipline among members of the prison service to be investigated and prosecuted and to ensure the efficient administration of the prison service” while deputy commissioner Tuhafeni Hangula is not charged for all serious offences.
Article 122(2) of the Namibian Constitution is clear that, “The Commissioner of Prisons shall make provisions or the balanced structuring of the prison service and shall have the power to make suitable appointments to the prison service.” Empowered by that, Assistant Commissioner Hamunyela has been promoted to the rank of a Deputy Commissioner by bypassing the senior assistant commissioners with so many years of service.
Despite several serious criminal cases where the Prisons Deputy Commissioner is implicated and to mention a few, only one case, CR No1659/93 was brought before court, but the rest of the following have not been brought before any court of law or acted upon:
Previous conviction, common assault, case No 1659/93, Keetmanshoop Court, date of conviction, 23/2/93, date of sentence 23/2/93. Falsified qualifications, since 1993, New Era 29 February - 1 March 1995 - CR NO 847/6/2011.
Alleged sexual harassment against a fellow female member, since 2006, Informanté 20 October-26 October 2011.
Allegedly freed a card-cloner who fled the country since 2009, Informanté 01 December- 07 December 2011.
Prison boss almost in cells for in possession of stolen goods, since 2010, Republikein 17 November 2010.
I also want the Commissioner-General to know that this is not a witch-hunt and these are not allegations at all but the truth that his deputy faked his qualifications and that the Commissioner-General protects his deputy.
The same Tuhafeni Hangula, Deputy Commissioner of Prisons intimidated the members of the service insofar that, any member who talks with the other members about the certificate saga is charged or fired from the service. Some members within the services who have been charged and dismissed are apparently linked to former prison officers who uncovered the story and now they suffer the reckless consequences of the long overdue story.
The truth remains, Tuhafeni Hangula forged the matric certificate otherwise, and he must come out publicly and prove the contrary.
The point from the former prison officers is that Hangula truly forged the matric certificate and they were intimidated, victimised and transferred to various stations to silence the certificate saga. The advisory committee chaired by the late DJ Muller, head of prisons then, late deputy commissioner Johnson Mabakeng and now the Commissioner–General told the former prison officers to forget the matter or be relieved of their duties. (New Era 29-1 March 1995).
What is the reason for the Commissioner-General to cover his deputy and why can the Commissioner-General not take action against his deputy?
Once again, if the Commissioner-General cannot take action against his deputy, I am calling upon his Excellency, President Pohamba to take the example from his counterpart, President Jacob Zuma, who fired the controversial Police Commissioners, Jacky Selebi and Bheki Cele and to fire Tuhafeni Hangula, who is riddled with controversy, contradictions, involved in criminal activities and who has tarnished the image of the Prison Services with successive scandals.