Minister of Works and Transport Veikko Nekundi has taken a decision that many before him have avoided. In stating unequivocally that government employees evicted from state-owned houses will not receive special treatment or automatic relocation, he has drawn a firm line between entitlement and accountability. It is a decision grounded not in hostility, but in principle. At a time when public infrastructure is under strain and housing demand continues to rise, the minister’s stance reflects a necessary commitment to restoring integrity in the management of state assets.
The numbers alone underscore the gravity of the matter. Government immovable assets are valued at approximately N$47.4 billion and include about 9 640 properties. These are not abstract figures; they represent public wealth accumulated through decades of national effort and taxpayer contribution. To mismanage, neglect, or abuse these assets is to undermine the collective investment of the Namibian people.
Nekundi’s assertion that the ministry cannot establish a precedent whereby individuals who breach contractual obligations receive preferential treatment is both legally sound and morally defensible. Government housing is allocated under explicit and transparent conditions. Occupants are informed from the outset that their stay is temporary and subject to notice. The letters of allocation clearly state that residence continues only until notice to vacate is issued or permanent accommodation is allocated. This is neither ambiguous nor arbitrary.
Yet for years, enforcement has often been timid. Temporary occupancy has, in practice, been treated by some as a pathway to indefinite entitlement. In many instances, state-owned houses have deteriorated into deplorable conditions. Properties that should serve as functional accommodation for civil servants have become eyesores, structurally compromised, poorly maintained, and in some cases bordering on uninhabitable. In countries with rigorously functioning systems, a number of these properties would likely have been condemned pending rehabilitation.
This reality is not merely an aesthetic concern; it is an ethical one. Public housing is not private property. It is a shared national resource intended to facilitate service delivery and to support civil servants, particularly those in lower income brackets who cannot easily access private accommodation. When occupants neglect these properties or allow them to deteriorate, they are not only breaching contractual obligations; they are eroding public value.
Even more troubling are credible reports that some civil servants allocated official housing have sublet these units for personal gain while relocating themselves to informal settlements. If accurate, this practice constitutes a double injustice. First, it deprives deserving public servants of legitimate access to housing. Second, it converts public infrastructure into a private income stream, effectively exploiting state assets for personal enrichment. In a country where many citizens are crying out for dignified housing, such conduct is not merely irregular; it is disgraceful.
Patriotism cannot be professed in speeches while public infrastructure is neglected in practice. It is deeply contradictory for individuals who regard themselves as servants of the nation to allow government property to fall into disrepair or, worse, to commercialise it informally. Public trust in institutions is fragile. It is weakened further when those entrusted with public resources appear to treat them as disposable or exploitable.
The situation surrounding properties such as Lewis House further illustrates the importance of administrative consistency. Where government assets have been earmarked for transfer to other entities, including the Namibia Airports Company, the integrity of prior approvals and cabinet decisions must be upheld. Selling such properties to temporary occupants would undermine established processes and introduce inequity into public administration. Nekundi is correct in emphasising that cabinet decisions remain binding unless formally overturned. The rule of law cannot be selectively applied.
Government flats, particularly those reserved for lower-paid civil servants, are not commodities to be liquidated opportunistically. They are strategic assets intended to support workforce stability and institutional functionality. The fact that no houses have been sold under the current alienation policy due to pending legal processes further underscores the need for prudence and procedural compliance.
Minister Nekundi’s position is therefore not punitive; it is restorative. It signals a shift from permissiveness to accountability. However, policy clarity must now be matched with systematic enforcement. We urge the ministry to design and implement a transparent audit mechanism to identify unlawful occupancy, subletting practices, and structural neglect. Clear timelines for eviction where contractual breaches are confirmed must be accompanied by structured plans for renovation and rehabilitation.
Evictions alone will not resolve the problem if properties are left vacant and unrepaired. The state must move decisively to refurbish deteriorated units and reallocate them to deserving civil servants under enforceable maintenance agreements. Regular inspections, maintenance obligations, and consequences for non-compliance should form part of future allocation frameworks. Public assets require active stewardship.
This moment represents more than a housing dispute. It reflects a broader question about how Namibia manages and protects its collective resources. A government that cannot safeguard its own infrastructure risks signalling institutional weakness. Conversely, a government that enforces contracts consistently affirms that public property is neither casual nor negotiable.
Minister Nekundi has taken a bold and necessary step toward preserving public infrastructure and reaffirming administrative integrity. The measure may be uncomfortable for some, but discomfort is often the precursor to reform. If Namibia is to address its housing pressures responsibly, it must begin by ensuring that existing public assets are protected, maintained, and fairly allocated.
Public housing is not a privilege without responsibility. It is a conditional trust. That trust must now be restored firmly, fairly, and without exception.
