Dr Rauna Shipena
When Immanuel “Imms” Mulunga won his Labour Court case against the National Petroleum Corporation of Namibia (Namcor), many assumed this marked the end of a turbulent chapter. But the question still hangs heavily in the air: What now?
Despite a clear ruling in his favour, Mulunga has received no word from his former employer. “They have not reached out to me yet,” he told The Namibian. “I don’t think I’m wanted, to be honest.”
This is more than just a workplace dispute. It’s a complex story of broken governance systems, corporate retaliation, strained professional relationships and perhaps, a few bridges too damaged to rebuild.
A legal victory… but at what cost?
On paper, Mulunga’s win seems straightforward. Arbitrator Moses Mazambo dismissed Namcor’s counterclaim and confirmed that Mulunga was unfairly dismissed, ordering Namcor to pay Labour Court costs.
Yet, reinstatement isn’t automatic. It’s complicated not just legally, but emotionally, politically, and organisationally. The silence from Namcor speaks volumes.
Governance gone wrong?
This situation exposes deep cracks in Namcor’s governance. According to Namibia’s own NamCode, as well as King IV and OECD guidelines for state-owned enterprises, good governance hinges on ethical leadership, clear delegation of authority, and board accountability.
Yet the facts are telling:
- Mulunga was given authority to act on the Sungara joint venture, only for the board to later claim they were misled.
- He was cleared by a retired Supreme Court judge yet still fired one day later over a separate transaction involving Enercon Namibia.
- The Enercon deal, while potentially strategic, was executed without full board approval, raising questions about procedural transparency on both sides.
This isn’t just about one executive’s actions. It’s about how boards manage risk, authority, and internal disagreements.
The hidden cost: Mental health in the executive suite
Mulunga’s public comments hint at the emotional and psychological toll that comes with being dismissed, scrutinized, and dragged through public hearings.
Executives often expected to be stoic face enormous stress. Add reputational damage, board conflict, and media headlines, and the mental burden becomes impossible to ignore.
If he were to return, would it even be healthy or productive for him or for Namcor? A toxic work environment benefits no one.
Broken or burned bridges?
Here’s the big question: Can he go back? Or more importantly: Should he?
Even with a legal victory, trust has clearly eroded. For a return to work to make sense, several things would need to happen:
- Public and private reconciliation between Mulunga and the board
- A commitment to better internal governance and communication
- Mental and emotional readiness to return without resentment or fear
But when trust is broken at the top, simply walking back through the office door doesn’t fix the damage.
Bigger lessons for Namibia’s corporate sector
This case is a mirror for other boards, executives, and governance bodies in Namibia. It shows what can happen when:
- Authority is delegated without clarity
- Boards react emotionally rather than strategically
- Labour processes aren’t followed to the letter
- There is no plan for managing high-profile internal conflicts
If nothing else, Mulunga vs Namcor should serve as a wake-up call.
What happens if he walks back in?
Let’s imagine he is reinstated. He walks into the boardroom again. Then what?
- Will his decisions be second-guessed?
- Will employees take sides?
- Will board members truly support him?
- Can corporate culture heal from such a high-profile split?
The answer depends on leadership maturity, governance reform, and frankly whether Namcor is willing to evolve.
Final thoughts
Immanuel Mulunga may have won in court, but the real battle is much deeper.
A Labour Court can order reinstatement. But it cannot order trust, dignity, psychological safety, or leadership harmony. That takes something much harder: intentional reconciliation and systemic change.
Whether he returns or not, this case will shape how Namibia’s state-owned enterprises think about executive leadership, accountability, and what it really means to walk the talk on governance.
