Fraudulent intent is difficult to prove

BRIAN BLACK WRITES:

I will always hold in high esteem some of our now retired politicians such as our former Prime Minister Nahas Angula. I had the very pleasant honour of meeting right honourable Angula in person for the first time during 1994 in New York City, when he was still a minister and a member of our founding President’s delegation to the USA. During a dinner hosted by the Clinton administration, I happened to be in-front when honourable Angula joined the queue. I politely offered my place to him at least 2-3 times, but he persistently declined my offer, stating that as a minister he was just an ordinary citizen like me. Coming from a continent where you don’t find this type of down to earthliness, the honourable minister right there made an everlasting impression on me and I was never disappointed until today. In fact, I continue to pray that God will bless our country with more leaders like him. The fact that during his long political career of service to our nation, his name never appears in one single publication for the wrong reason speaks not only volumes but is also a reaffirmation of the respect I have for him. Unfortunately, however, and being true to my character (which I am sure he will understand), I do not agree that fraudulent intent is difficult to prove in the disappearance of the GIPF N$660m (not 600m) for the following reasons: • Some of the so-called borrowers used “their loans” to purchased farms and luxury vehicles. Some of them are still sitting on these farms today. What efforts was made by GIPF to take back these farms? • Some of the so-called borrowers are now deceased but left millions in their estate. What efforts was made to claim at least a portion of the outstanding amounts against the estate of the deceased? • A big some of money was given to the so-called borrowers without any security whatsoever. • No actions were ever taken against those who dished out the money without following proper procedures etc.