The impending departure of Nangula Uaandja from the helm of the Namibia Investment Promotion and Development Board (NIPDB) marks yet another twist in the turbulent journey of an institution that has, from its very inception, been mired in confusion, political tug-of-war, and chronic uncertainty.
As the nation reflects on what this means for investment promotion and economic governance, one uncomfortable truth demands confrontation: Namibia continues to create institutions without the clarity, stability and legislative backbone required for them to thrive.
From the moment NIPDB was launched under the administration of the late President Hage Geingob, optimism was tempered by unease. The organisation was meant to streamline investment promotion, reduce bureaucratic fragmentation and serve as a central engine for economic development. Yet even before its operational foundations were firmly laid, its mandate intersected, and at times collided, with that of the Ministry of Trade. What ensued was an administrative tug-of-war that left investors, staff and policymakers unclear about who held what authority. For a country that must compete aggressively for global investment, this was more than an inconvenience; it was a self-inflicted wound.
Uaandja’s leadership brought visibility, structure and a strong public presence to NIPDB. But one leader, no matter how competent, cannot compensate for a system that is conceptually flawed. The Board’s enabling legislation lingered in ambiguity, its legal footing not fully articulated, and its long-term operational structure left vulnerable to political reshuffling. It is within this climate that NIPDB, just as it appeared to be finding its rhythm, was abruptly moved to fall under the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation. This shift raised more questions than answers: Was the move strategic? Was it administrative expediency? Or was it simply another example of government restructuring without a long-term plan?
Predictably, institutional battles followed. When mandates are unclear, territory becomes contested. And when territory is contested, progress suffers. NIPDB’s mission, promoting Namibia as a competitive investment destination, requires stability, credibility and policy coherence. Instead, it became entangled in bureaucratic disputes that undermined its legitimacy before the global investors it was meant to court.
In this context, the news of Uaandja’s impending exit, while disappointing for some, is hardly surprising. Few leaders would remain in an environment where structural instability becomes the norm and institutional identity is reshaped at the whims of administrative realignments. Policy uncertainty is toxic, not only to investors but also to those tasked with promoting investment. When the ground shifts beneath one’s feet often enough, even the most committed professional will begin to question whether the organisation’s vision can realistically be fulfilled.
For Namibia, the implications of this moment extend far beyond the departure of a CEO. It is an indictment of a broader governance challenge: the habit of building institutions without anchoring them in durable legislation, clear mandates and consistent political will. Vision alone does not build institutions; coherence does. And coherence is precisely what has been lacking.
The question now, Quo Vadis, NIPDB?, requires honest reflection from policymakers, parliamentarians and the executive. Investment promotion is a national priority. It cannot be treated as an experimental project shuffled from ministry to ministry, nor can it survive in a space where its core responsibilities overlap with other government entities. The world of investment is competitive, unforgiving and sensitive to transparency. Countries that win are those that project certainty, efficiency and strategic consistency. Namibia cannot afford to present the opposite.
If NIPDB is to survive and truly fulfil its intended mandate, several actions must follow.
First, its legislative framework must be finalised, strengthened and publicly clarified. Investors, staff and stakeholders must understand precisely what the Board is empowered to do and what it is not.
Second, the institution must be insulated from political volatility. Moving it from one ministry to another without clear justification undermines continuity and erodes trust. A stable institutional home is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for credibility.
Third, the government must re-examine the broader ecosystem of investment promotion, including the roles of existing ministries, agencies and SOEs. Overlapping mandates dilute accountability and create conflict. A streamlined, integrated national strategy is essential.
Finally, leadership transitions must be approached with transparency and integrity. Speculation thrives in silence. While the reasons for Uaandja’s anticipated departure remain undisclosed, the public deserves clarity about what this means for continuity, reform and future direction.
Namibia stands at an economic crossroads. Vision 2030, industrialisation goals and national development strategies all hinge on meaningful investment, both domestic and foreign. But investment does not respond to slogans or good intentions. It responds to institutions that function predictably, operate transparently and communicate consistently.
NIPDB’s challenges are symptomatic of a broader pattern within the public sector: new institutions are launched with enthusiasm but without the structural rigour necessary for long-term success. This pattern must end. The stakes are too high.
We urge the government to treat this moment not as a personnel shift but as a strategic inflection point. The question is not simply who leads NIPDB next, but whether the institution will finally be empowered to lead effectively.
Namibia cannot continue to ask the world to invest with confidence while failing to project confidence in its own institutional architecture. The time for clarity, reform and decisive action is now.
