Staff Reporter
THE Roads Authority (RA) has hit back at two former executives, namely Johan Ludwig Boois and Richard Masule Milingi, who argue that the disciplinary process leading to their dismissal was unlawful.
The state entity has argued that Boois, executive officer for transportation, and Milingi, divisional manager for the transport inspectorate, were dismissed for serious misconduct following a three-year disciplinary process and are now seeking to hijack the High Court’s urgent roll to stay a domestic appeal process that they themselves catalysed.
The two took the Roads Authority to court, seeking to stop the appeal process and prevent the RA from enforcing their dismissal while the review is ongoing.
The two argued that the RA also failed to process their appeal within a prescribed period, and that this was handled by the disciplinary chairperson, J N Tjitemisa, who they claimed did not have the requisite authority. The two were found guilty on 25 November 2025 by the disciplinary chairperson, and the judgment was shared on 20 January 2026.
The parties met on 5 and 6 February to present mitigating and aggravating factors. The chairperson then imposed dismissal on 23 February, which was followed by an appeal by the two a day afterwards. The case is linked to allegations of a N$16 million procurement irregularity involving law enforcement vehicles.
The RA’s legal representative, Marius Boonzaier, however, hit back, arguing that the urgent application by the two executives is fatally defective on three jurisdictional levels: it lacks urgency, it targets a non-reviewable contractual decision, and it has been brought in the incorrect forum, as it failed to follow the statutory procedure prescribed in the Labour Act.
Boonzaier argued that Boois and Milingi were aware of Tjitemisa’s identity and appointment well before the hearing. However, they permitted a 14-day “black hole” to lapse between the notice on 13 March 2026 and the filing of this application on 27 March 2026.
“On 31 March 2026, Boois and Milingi appeared before Tjitemisa. Despite their current stance that his appointment is irregular, they failed to move a formal application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of his lack of jurisdiction. Their own legal representative admitted in writing that no such application was made. A party cannot ignore “procedural tools” available and then claim the matter is so urgent that the High Court must intervene. The urgency is manufactured by their failure to challenge the appointment to the chairperson’s face,” Boonzaier said.
He further argued that Tjitemisa himself postponed the hearing to 12 May 2026 and added that if Tjitemisa’s appointment is indeed irregular, that irregularity will remain an irregularity in six weeks or six months.
“There is no “looming” threat that will vanish if the matter is heard on the ordinary motion roll. The “house is not on fire” because Tjitemisa has effectively paused the process,” Boonzaier said.
He added that the two also bypassed the Labour Act.
“By approaching the Civil Division for labour disputes, the applicants are attempting to circumvent the “comprehensive system of remedies” established by the Act. This violates the principle of subsidiarity. The applicants, in their note, appear to suggest that they can refer a dispute to the Labour Commission only within six months. This misinterprets Section 86. Because the applicants could have referred a dispute to the Labour Commissioner (or can do so following the appeal), they have failed to show that the statutory route would effectively deny them access to justice,” Boonzaier said.
Picture for illustrative purposes only. Photo: NBC Digital News
