Diplomacy is often described as the quiet engine of international relations. It runs on protocol, trust, discretion and mutual respect between sovereign states. When it functions well, citizens rarely notice it. When it falters, however, the consequences can be swift and embarrassing, not only for the officials involved but also for the national image they represent.
Recent developments in relations between Namibia and Ghana have raised legitimate concern. Ghana has sought clarification from Namibia over the appointment and public commissioning of former agriculture ministry executive director Ndiyakupi Nghituwamata as high commissioner-designate to Accra, despite the fact that formal consent from the receiving state had not yet been secured. The matter has introduced avoidable friction into what has traditionally been a cordial bilateral relationship between two respected African democracies.
Nghituwamata was appointed in December last year alongside several other diplomatic postings. She has not yet departed Namibia for Ghana, and it is acknowledged that she cannot take up her post until the receiving state grants formal agreement. The difficulty arises from the sequence of events: the nominee was commissioned and publicly announced before the host country had completed its consideration of the request for consent. In diplomatic practice, this order matters. It is not a ceremonial detail but an established international convention.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a sending state must obtain agrément, formal acceptance, from the receiving state before accrediting a head of mission. This rule exists to safeguard mutual respect and sovereign equality. When it is not followed precisely, even inadvertently, it can be interpreted as presumption or disregard for diplomatic protocol. Ghana’s reaction should therefore be understood not as hostility, but as a reminder that diplomatic rules are not optional courtesies.
Namibia is not inexperienced in these matters. Nearly 36 years after independence, the country has built a credible and generally admired diplomatic footprint. It has contributed to international peace efforts, upheld multilateral cooperation, and cultivated friendships across continents. That record makes any hint of procedural missteps in foreign affairs particularly concerning. Namibia’s diplomatic service has long prided itself on professionalism; lapses in protocol risk undermining that hard-earned reputation.
The concern is heightened by the experience of the country’s leadership. President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah and the Minister of International Relations and Trade, Selma Ashipala-Masavyi, are both seasoned diplomats who have spent decades representing Namibia on the global stage. Their stewardship should guarantee institutional discipline and adherence to international conventions. When apparent procedural errors occur under such experienced leadership, questions inevitably arise about internal coordination and administrative rigour within the foreign service.
It is important to acknowledge that diplomatic misunderstandings are not unheard of, even among established states. Bureaucratic haste, miscommunication between departments, or unclear chains of responsibility can produce outcomes that were never intended. There is no evidence of deliberate disrespect towards Ghana. However, in diplomacy, perception often carries as much weight as intent. Once a perception of procedural impropriety takes root, it must be addressed swiftly and with humility.
This episode also comes at a time when Namibia’s diplomatic postings have attracted increasing public scrutiny. Several ambassadorial appointments in recent months have occurred with limited public communication, creating an impression of opacity in the conduct of foreign affairs. While discretion is a natural element of diplomacy, transparency in appointments helps maintain public trust and reinforces confidence in institutional processes. Where communication is thin, speculation grows.
There is an additional dimension that requires careful handling. Nghituwamata was earlier questioned by the Anti-Corruption Commission regarding her role in a government tender during her previous public service. No charges have been brought, and she is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Nonetheless, diplomatic appointments demand not only competence but also unimpeachable credibility. Any unresolved questions surrounding a nominee, even if legally inconclusive, heighten the need for procedural meticulousness. When protocol is followed to the letter, it shields both the individual and the state from avoidable controversy.
At stake is more than a single diplomatic posting. Namibia’s international standing rests on the perception that it is a mature, rules-based and reliable partner. How the country navigates this moment will be observed quietly but attentively by other states. A respectful and prompt resolution will reaffirm Namibia’s commitment to diplomatic norms. A hesitant or defensive response risks reinforcing doubts about internal coherence in foreign policy management.
There is a broader lesson here. After almost four decades of independence, Namibia must continuously refine its statecraft. Institutions do not mature automatically with age; they require discipline, training and accountability. Rookie mistakes belong to the formative years of nationhood, not to a country approaching its fourth decade on the world stage.
Namibia has achieved much in diplomacy and international engagement. This incident, regardless of its administrative origins, should serve as a cautionary reminder that reputation is built slowly but can be strained quickly. In foreign affairs, procedure is not paperwork; it is respect in action.
Diplomacy is delicate work. The rules are clear. The experience exists. The responsibility now is to ensure that Namibia consistently acts like the seasoned diplomatic player it has the capacity, and obligation, to be.
