Justicia Shipena
The Office of the Ombudsman has found irregularities and possible discrimination in the Namibia Revenue Agency’s (NamRA) recruitment process for assistant tax officers.
This finding follows an investigation by its investigation division into complaints of unfair treatment.
The findings are contained in a recently released investigation report by Ombudsman Basilius Dyakugha, dated 6 March 2024.
The investigation began after a candidate lodged a complaint alleging discrimination based on ethnicity during NamRA’s recruitment of assistant tax officers.
The complainant said she applied, was shortlisted, wrote the test, passed the interview and was recommended for appointment, but did not receive an offer.
She claimed the advertised selection criteria were changed during the process.
NamRA had advertised 66 assistant tax officer positions in February 2023.
A total of 5 229 applications were received. From these, 273 candidates were shortlisted and wrote an online test. Candidates who scored 60% and above were subjected to further vetting.
In November 2023, NamRA suspended one of its human resources officers after allegations of corruption and irregularities emerged regarding the recruitment process of customs and excise officers.
During the investigation, Dyakugha said his office was provided with a list of 82 names linked to employment status, referred to as Table 1 in the report.
Of these, 50 names, including that of the complainant, were marked in red to reflect their employment status. The remaining 32 names were marked as ‘approved’.
Dyakugha states that the 32 approved candidates were grouped according to employment status.
The categories included unemployed, employed in government or state-owned enterprises, employed in the private sector or small and medium enterprises, and those on short-term contracts.
Table 2 summarises the 32 approved candidates by tribe and employment status.
The report shows that 24 of the approved candidates were classified as unemployed, while eight were from SME or contractual employment. The table also groups candidates by ethnic origin.
Dyakugha notes that NamRA later provided this list to counter claims that candidates were excluded based on race or ethnicity.
He confirmed that offers were eventually made to 57 candidates. These are listed in Table 3, which sets out their names, regions and commencement dates. The regions include the Central, Northern, Western, Southern, Far Northern and Northeastern regions.
The Ombudsman found inconsistencies in how employment status was applied. Some candidates classified as unemployed were later shown on verification lists as permanently employed. Dyakugha said in some cases, candidates who had tax numbers or employment records were still classified as unemployed and appointed.
In Table 4, covering the Central Region, two candidates with similar employment status were treated differently. One was recruited, and the other was not, although both were registered taxpayers. The Ombudsman questioned what criteria were used.
In Tables 5 and 6, covering the North Central Region, an unemployed candidate who scored 60% was left out. At the same time, other candidates classified as employed were appointed. Dyakugha states that verification lists contradicted NamRA’s explanation that only unemployed graduates were considered.
Table 7, covering the Western Region, shows that a candidate classified as unemployed with no tax records was left out, while others with tax numbers and employment records were appointed.
Table 8, covering the Southern office, reflects that an unemployed candidate who scored 60% and had tax records was not recruited, while other employed candidates were appointed.
Table 9, near the end of the report, includes a list of hygiene officers and assistant tax officers grouped by tribe. The Ombudsman states that this indicates candidates were grouped according to race or ethnic origin during the recruitment process.
The Ombudsman found that NamRA deviated from its recruitment policy. The policy required specific years of experience in domestic taxes.
Dyakugha said that NamRA later waived this requirement and added a new condition that successful candidates must be unemployed graduates. The Ombudsman found no evidence that this change was formally approved or properly recorded.
The report concludes that setting aside the advertised experience requirement and introducing a new selection criterion during the recruitment process amounts to maladministration. It states that the recruitment process was inconsistent and lacked transparency.
The Ombudsman further found that grouping candidates by tribe and selectively applying criteria may amount to unfair discrimination under the Labour Act, which prohibits direct or indirect discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity.
The report recommends that NamRA follow its own recruitment policy, ensure that interview panels allocate scores properly and submit recommendations to the commissioner before any final decision is made.
The report asserts that disregarding institutional policy and failing to maintain proper record-keeping undermines accountability within a public institution.
