airbus babe
17th May 2002, 20:42
Which is Which!!!
Suspended or fired Air Namibia Guessing!
Indeed there appears to be another side to the coin.
In a letter dated May 7, 2002, Air Namibia was instructed by Chikumba's Lawyers, METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS, to lay charges as the former CEO had been suspended for 2 weeks without charges. Air Namibia laid the charges under pressure on the same day. The letter read as follows (and i quote!):
Dear Sir,
We are acting on the instructions of Mr. Peter Chikumba re: his suspension from duties on 26th April 2002. We have further had the opportunity of pursuing the disciplinary code issued on 18th October 1996 and revised in August 1997. Should the disciplinary code not have been revised in the interim it is provided therein that "the enquiries should be completed without undue delay".
At this moment in time our client has been on suspension since 26th April 2002. He has received offers of alternative employment from other instances and obviously due to the pending procedings is unable to affirm or disaafirm his availability for employment to such institutions.
In the circumstances it would be appreciated if you would urgently inform our client through our offices precisely when you anticipate holding such disciplinary enquiry. It is further enquired whether you would consider allowing our client to be represented by writer hereof at any disciplinary enquiry in respect of Mr. Chikumba.
Should a new disciplinary code have been issued and/or any further revisions had been made since August 1997 it would be appreciated if a copy would be provided to our offices in order that we can advise our client accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
PER: R N METCALFE
In another letter dated May 17, 2002 Chikumba's lawyers have indicated to Air Namibia's lawyers? ELLIS & PARTNERS the possibilities of litigation against the Airline should he not be guilty of the allegations which will be heard on May 22, 2002. This letter read as follows (and i quote again!):
Dear Sir,
As you may be aware we are acting on behalf of Mr. Peter Chikumba re: the aforesaid disciplinary hearing which is scheduled for 22 May 2002.
We have in a previous item of correspondance which was answered telephonically by your Mr. Martin Strydom indicated that we needed a copy of the disciplinary code which is presently in use at Air Namibia. To date we have not, neither ourselves nor our client received such. It would be appreciated if we could obtain the disciplinary code in order to prepare for trial.
Further we wish to bring to your attention that the followin witnesses are intended to be called by our client in the presentation of his case:
Mr. Swartbooi
Mr. Rukoro
Ms. Zamwaani
Mr. Riedel
It would be appreciated if you would indicate whether any of the aforesaid persons are witnesses for the prosecution in this matter. If you are not of the intension to utilise any of the aforesaid persons kindly indicate that these persons will be present at the disciplinary hearing inorder for our client to utilise these persons as his witnesses. Any consultation with these witnesses will obviously neccessitate a slight adjournment prior to the presentation of their evidence.
We further bring it to your attention that our client has no objection whatsoever to the entire content of the disciplinary hearing being presented to the office of the Prosecutor-General. We however with the utmost respect bring it to your attention that the disciplinary hearing is not a without prejudice hearing and that our client reserves the right to utilise the content of such hearing re: any civil litigation for defamation. You and your client are well aware of the immense publicity which this matter has enjoyed.
It is with the utmost repsect, further brought to your attention that we are rather confused at the moment in time!! The reason for this confusion is that the allegation seems to be that our client is not under contract to Air Namibia as his contract was fraudulently obtained. In the light thereof it seems strange that the disciplinary hear is to take place. If there is no contract between our client and your client then we see no reason in Law or Logic as to why any disciplinary proceedings should be attained by our client.Perhapse you could explain this obvious contradiction to us. Our client's rights in this regard are of course reserved.
Kindly inform us as to what the venue will be for this disciplinary hearing as the disciplinary notice dated 7 May, 2002 seems to be vague in this regard.
Yours faithfully,
METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
PER: R N METCALFE
So, it would appear its a trial and error guessing game at the ailing SADC airline Air Namibia. Some of us in the industry have seen enough victimisation of CEOs on this continent at the hands of unscrupolous institutions like Air Namibia.
Suspended or fired Air Namibia Guessing!
Indeed there appears to be another side to the coin.
In a letter dated May 7, 2002, Air Namibia was instructed by Chikumba's Lawyers, METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS, to lay charges as the former CEO had been suspended for 2 weeks without charges. Air Namibia laid the charges under pressure on the same day. The letter read as follows (and i quote!):
Dear Sir,
We are acting on the instructions of Mr. Peter Chikumba re: his suspension from duties on 26th April 2002. We have further had the opportunity of pursuing the disciplinary code issued on 18th October 1996 and revised in August 1997. Should the disciplinary code not have been revised in the interim it is provided therein that "the enquiries should be completed without undue delay".
At this moment in time our client has been on suspension since 26th April 2002. He has received offers of alternative employment from other instances and obviously due to the pending procedings is unable to affirm or disaafirm his availability for employment to such institutions.
In the circumstances it would be appreciated if you would urgently inform our client through our offices precisely when you anticipate holding such disciplinary enquiry. It is further enquired whether you would consider allowing our client to be represented by writer hereof at any disciplinary enquiry in respect of Mr. Chikumba.
Should a new disciplinary code have been issued and/or any further revisions had been made since August 1997 it would be appreciated if a copy would be provided to our offices in order that we can advise our client accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
PER: R N METCALFE
In another letter dated May 17, 2002 Chikumba's lawyers have indicated to Air Namibia's lawyers? ELLIS & PARTNERS the possibilities of litigation against the Airline should he not be guilty of the allegations which will be heard on May 22, 2002. This letter read as follows (and i quote again!):
Dear Sir,
As you may be aware we are acting on behalf of Mr. Peter Chikumba re: the aforesaid disciplinary hearing which is scheduled for 22 May 2002.
We have in a previous item of correspondance which was answered telephonically by your Mr. Martin Strydom indicated that we needed a copy of the disciplinary code which is presently in use at Air Namibia. To date we have not, neither ourselves nor our client received such. It would be appreciated if we could obtain the disciplinary code in order to prepare for trial.
Further we wish to bring to your attention that the followin witnesses are intended to be called by our client in the presentation of his case:
Mr. Swartbooi
Mr. Rukoro
Ms. Zamwaani
Mr. Riedel
It would be appreciated if you would indicate whether any of the aforesaid persons are witnesses for the prosecution in this matter. If you are not of the intension to utilise any of the aforesaid persons kindly indicate that these persons will be present at the disciplinary hearing inorder for our client to utilise these persons as his witnesses. Any consultation with these witnesses will obviously neccessitate a slight adjournment prior to the presentation of their evidence.
We further bring it to your attention that our client has no objection whatsoever to the entire content of the disciplinary hearing being presented to the office of the Prosecutor-General. We however with the utmost respect bring it to your attention that the disciplinary hearing is not a without prejudice hearing and that our client reserves the right to utilise the content of such hearing re: any civil litigation for defamation. You and your client are well aware of the immense publicity which this matter has enjoyed.
It is with the utmost repsect, further brought to your attention that we are rather confused at the moment in time!! The reason for this confusion is that the allegation seems to be that our client is not under contract to Air Namibia as his contract was fraudulently obtained. In the light thereof it seems strange that the disciplinary hear is to take place. If there is no contract between our client and your client then we see no reason in Law or Logic as to why any disciplinary proceedings should be attained by our client.Perhapse you could explain this obvious contradiction to us. Our client's rights in this regard are of course reserved.
Kindly inform us as to what the venue will be for this disciplinary hearing as the disciplinary notice dated 7 May, 2002 seems to be vague in this regard.
Yours faithfully,
METCALFE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS
PER: R N METCALFE
So, it would appear its a trial and error guessing game at the ailing SADC airline Air Namibia. Some of us in the industry have seen enough victimisation of CEOs on this continent at the hands of unscrupolous institutions like Air Namibia.