NYC responds to board fees report
By Paulina Ndalikokule and Maria Hamutenya
The National Youth Council (NYC) diffused allegations published in Confidente newspaper last week relating to board members employed by government who received more than N$400 000 in board fees, despite the NYC Act stating that no remuneration was payable to any member of a board who is in the full-time employ of the State.
The four board members who allegedly received over N$400 000 in sitting feels and allowances were Alfeus Kapolo, a youth officer at the Ministry of Sports, Youth and National Services; Lot Ndamanomhata from the Ministry of Poverty Eradication, Beatrice Kotungondo, a teacher with the Ministry of Education, and Ndahafa Hapulile of the Ministry of Urban and Rural Development.
NYC deputy board chairperson Elsarien Katiti at a recent press conference said, “Two members of whom one represents the marginalised group are nominated by the ministry and one is nominated by the National Federation of Youth with Disabilities. Therefore, the board members alleged to have received board fees are not on board as government officials but are serving on behalf of their youth organisation that nominated them,” Katiti said.
Katiti added that the board’s accounts are audited on an annual basis and tabled before the council. Information on board remuneration is open and financial statements are presented in a transparent manner.
“The SOE board of directors’ remuneration is regulated by the SOE remuneration guidelines. NYC falls under the tier one and is therefore guided as such. The board for more clarity on the matter tasked the director of council to consult with the Ministry on Public Enterprises for guidance,” she said.
She said the feedback was that all serving board members are entitled to board fees. The board consulted the ministry on the fees and increments payable to board member about four years ago. “We therefore attest that all board fees received by NYC serving board members were in accordance with SOE remuneration guidelines.”
She further said the board wanted to clarify that any suggestion of victimisation of whistleblowers as highlighted in the article is a trumped-up allegation.