The Namib Desert Diamonds (Namdia) diamond heist of N$315 million was not an ordinary crime. It was the most daring and audacious financial theft in recent Namibian history. It struck at the heart of national pride, shook confidence in public institutions, and traumatised a nation that rightfully regards its diamonds as part of its collective inheritance.
Now, as investigations continue and an employee has been arrested in connection with the heist, Namdia has chosen to retreat behind a wall of secrecy, refusing to disclose even the arrested person’s identity, gender, or position in the company. The justification given is that investigations are ongoing. While protecting the integrity of investigations is a legitimate concern, Namdia’s current posture is neither neutral nor harmless. It undermines public trust, deepens suspicion, and contradicts the principles of accountability expected from a public enterprise entrusted with national resources. We strongly discourage Namdia from persisting with this position.
The scale of the heist was staggering. N$315 million worth of diamonds did not simply vanish from a private shop safe; they disappeared from a state-owned enterprise responsible for safeguarding one of Namibia’s most strategic resources. The public shock was immediate and enduring. Questions emerged about internal controls, management integrity, security systems, and possible collusion.
When such a crime occurs in a public institution, the story no longer belongs to the company alone. It becomes a national matter. The Namibian public is not a casual observer; it is a stakeholder. Citizens have a direct interest in knowing how their resources were handled, how security failed, and who is implicated. Silence in this context does not preserve dignity; it breeds conspiracy theories and erodes confidence in public governance.
Trauma unaddressed turns into mistrust. If Namdia wishes to rebuild public faith, openness is not optional; it is essential. Namdia must also recognise that the initial handling of the heist was itself marked by confusion and sketchy communication. Early details about how the diamonds were stolen were vague and inconsistent. Public explanations were slow, partial, and sometimes contradictory. This communication vacuum inevitably gave rise to speculation and public anger.
The matter escalated to the dismissal of several employees, including the former CEO. That fact alone signals that serious internal failures occurred. When leadership changes and dismissals follow a major scandal, transparency becomes even more crucial. Instead, Namdia now appears to be repeating the same mistake: withholding information in a matter of intense public interest.
An institution that has already suffered reputational damage cannot afford to compound it through excessive secrecy. Trust, once broken, is rebuilt only through demonstrable accountability.
Namdia is wholly owned by the Namibian state. Its assets are national assets. Its mandate is public. Its operations are funded and legitimised by the people of Namibia. Therefore, access to information concerning its conduct is not a favour; it is a constitutional and democratic right.
Namibia’s access-to-information principles exist precisely to prevent public entities from hiding behind internal processes when public resources are at stake. While certain details may justifiably be withheld to avoid compromising investigations, refusing to disclose even basic, non-prejudicial information, such as the arrested employee’s role in the company, crosses the line from caution into obstruction of public accountability.
Other democratic states manage this balance effectively. Identities of suspects in major public-interest cases are routinely disclosed once arrests are made, while still protecting due process. Namibia should be no different. Shielding information too aggressively risks creating the impression that Namdia is protecting individuals rather than protecting justice.
There is a mistaken belief that public silence automatically protects investigations. In reality, credible transparency can strengthen them. When institutions communicate clearly, they reduce misinformation, discourage leaks, and demonstrate cooperation with law enforcement. Secrecy, by contrast, encourages speculation, whistleblowing through unofficial channels, and distrust of official narratives.
Namibians are not asking for trial by media. They are asking for assurance that no one is being protected because of rank, connections, or political proximity. The refusal to release basic information invites precisely that suspicion. If Namdia has nothing to hide, it must show it.
Namibia’s diamond sector is too important to be left under a cloud of doubt. Investors, partners, and international markets watch how governance crises are handled. Public confidence in state-owned enterprises is already fragile. Namdia has an opportunity, even now, to demonstrate that it belongs to a new era of accountable public management.
That begins with clear, consistent, and honest communication. It means acknowledging public interest. It means respecting citizens as rightful stakeholders. And it means understanding that transparency is not an inconvenience; it is a duty.
We call on Namdia’s board and executive leadership to reconsider their communication strategy. Release information that does not compromise the investigation. Clarify the arrested employee’s role within the company. Outline the steps being taken to prevent future breaches. Reassure the public that this case will be pursued without fear or favour.
Namibia does not need another chapter of secrecy in public scandals. It needs institutions brave enough to confront crises in the open.
The Namdia heist wounded public trust. Only transparency can heal it.
