Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
Namibia stands on the brink of a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Billions of dollars could flow from oil and gas resources, but who controls that wealth, and how it is managed, will determine whether this opportunity becomes a blessing or a curse for generations to come.
This week, the National Assembly debated the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill, a law that proposes shifting authority over the oil and gas sector from the Ministry of Industries, Mines and Energy to the Presidency. Supporters argue that centralising power ensures faster decisions, coordinated leadership, and stronger investor confidence. Critics, however, warn that bypassing ministerial accountability risks weakening constitutional checks and balances and concentrates power in ways that could backfire.
Centralisation vs accountability debate
Landless People’s Movement (LPM) leader Bernadus Swartbooi acknowledges why President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah is seeking to shift the authority over the oil and gas sector from the Ministry of Industries, Mines and Energy to the Presidency, as the country needs solutions for the oil and energy sector, and highlighted systemic challenges in the Ministry, such as the issues of trust, corruption and what he calls “power and resource grabs” within the oil and gas sector. Yet, Swartbooi warns that the approach is misguided, as it might weaken democratic accountability and checks and balances.
Namibia Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF) Deputy President Longinus Iipumbu Kalimbo supports strengthening executive authority, arguing that the President represents the sovereign will of the people. Yet, ironically, it suggests that the Minister of Industries, Mines and Energy must exercise ultimate authority to issue, revoke and renew licences. Minister of Environment, Forestry and Tourism Indileni Daniel said, “Such a critical sector requires oversight from the highest executive level to ensure coordinated and decisive leadership. This is not about centralising power but about safeguarding national interest, ensuring efficiency, and providing strong leadership in managing a resource that will shape the country’s future.”
While these perspectives all contain truth, they also reveal a deeper challenge: how to design institutions that are strong, decisive, and accountable at the same time.
Constitutional design challenge beyond politics
This debate is not about personalities or politics; it is about constitutional design. The key question is not who holds power, but whether the system allows flawed decisions to be reviewed and corrected.
A presidential unit may act quickly and publish reports to enhance transparency. But without ministerial accountability to Parliament, oversight can weaken, leaving citizens with little recourse. Namibia needs systems that allow errors to be corrected internally before litigation becomes necessary. This is critical in a sector where billions of dollars hinge on a single licensing or investment decision.
Transparency, Accountability, and Reviewability: What Every Namibian Should Know
Transparency shows what happened. Accountability determines who answers for what happened. Reviewability ensures flawed decisions can be reversed.
A governance system that prioritises only transparency but ignores reviewability risks creating a façade of openness without meaningful checks on power. Namibia’s success will depend on all three working together.
Independent Coordination Committee: Ensuring Technical and Institutional Integrity
One way to strengthen governance is to establish an Independent Coordination Committee composed of experts, tasked with recommending to the responsible minister on the granting, revocation, and renewal of licences subject to approval by the evaluation and monitoring unit in the Presidency.
This mechanism strengthens governance because:
Independence ensures decisions aren’t influenced by political pressure or vested interests. Expert composition guarantees that technical, environmental, and economic considerations are properly evaluated. Checks and balances via approval by the minister and eventually the presidency’s evaluation and monitoring unit ensure accountability and transparency. Lifecycle oversight (granting, revocation, renewal) prevents exploitation or mismanagement of resources.
In practice, this resembles Norway’s model, where the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and the Petroleum Directorate manage licensing while independent experts provide recommendations. Norway’s success lies in separating political authority from technical assessment.
Learning from Norway and Guyana
Namibia can also learn from two contrasting approaches to resource revenue management:
Norway coordinated strategy and long-term wealth preservation.
• Government Pension Fund Global manages oil revenues.
• Long-term savings for future generations.
• Diversification of investments outside the oil sector.
• Strong ethical and governance standards.
• Outcome: avoids the “resource curse”, minimises corruption risks, and prevents over-reliance on oil for domestic consumption.
Guyana’s urgency with developmental guardrails
• Emphasises immediate investment in infrastructure and social development.
• Boosts economic growth and employment
• Improves human capital.
• Reduces inequality.
Risks – mismanagement or overdependence on oil, highlighting the importance of strong institutions and oversight like Namibia’s proposed independent committee.
Key lessons for policy
• Institutional independence and transparency prevent corruption and ensure fair licensing.
• Expert evaluation aligns resource exploitation with national interests and sustainability.
• Revenue management must balance immediate developmental needs with long-term savings.
• Learning from others: Norway for wealth preservation and Guyana for immediate development, always combined with strong governance.
A four-layer governance model for Namibia
To balance strategy, execution, and accountability, Namibia could adopt a four-layer petroleum governance model:
1. Strategic Layer – Office of the President
• Sets national petroleum strategy
• Coordinates inter-ministerial and international alignment
• Evaluates, monitors compliance and publishes the annual “State of Petroleum” report
2. Regulatory & Licensing Layer – Ministry of Mines and Energy
• Manages licensing rounds
• Approves contracts
• Accountable to Parliament under Article 41
3. Fiscal Layer – Ministry of Finance
• Collects revenue
• Manages sovereign wealth and future generations funds
• Integrates funds into the national budget and invests in infrastructure development.
4. Oversight layer – independent institutions
• Auditor-General
• Parliamentary Standing Committees
• Civil society access to data
• Mandatory public disclosure
This model ensures centralised strategy, ministerial execution, and independent oversight.
the best of both worlds.
The false choice of centralisation vs decentralisation
Not all decisions require the same level of central control:
• Centralise strategy, foreign negotiations, and macroeconomic policy.
• Decentralise licensing, technical approvals, and compliance monitoring.
• Concentrate political direction, deconcentrate operational power.
This approach avoids bottlenecks, strengthens institutional capacity, and keeps investors confident.
Risks to avoid
1. Bottleneck – Too many approvals may slow decision-making.
2. Political Risk Premium – Investors fear unpredictability more than centralisation; stable rules are key.
3. Institutional Hollowing – Losing technical expertise from ministries weakens long-term capacity and exposes the presidency to summons to appear in court as the Functus Officio.
Strong states are defined not by concentrated power, but by clear, accountable institutions.
Between Norway and Guyana: Namibia’s Path
Namibia can combine lessons from both countries:
• Future Generations Fund (Norway): rule-based, transparent, insulated from politics.
• Development Fund (Guyana): finances urgent social and infrastructure needs under statutory oversight. One fund for tomorrow. One fund for today. Both governed by law, not discretion.
Why this matters to every Namibian
Every licensing decision, every revenue withdrawal, and every policy choice in the petroleum sector affects jobs, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. A poorly designed system risks handing billions to a few, while a well-designed system can transform the nation for generations.
The Petroleum Amendment Bill debate has forced this conversation into the open. The solution is not simply to centralise power or resist centralisation; it is to create a constitutional architecture that ensures strategy, execution, revenue, and oversight are all in balance, protecting both national sovereignty and democratic accountability.
Our oil wealth will not define us. The institutions we build to manage it will. Namibia stands at a constitutional and moral crossroads. The real question is not whether Namibia will extract oil; it is whether Namibia will do so responsibly.
Oil belongs to no legislature, no executive, and no party. It belongs to unborn Namibians. Parliament is not the owner; it is the trustee.
Debates over the Petroleum Bill are therefore not mere technical quarrels; they are an intergenerational covenant. Will decisions be guided by long-term vision or short-term advantage? By institutional safeguards or partisan arithmetic?
The eighth legislature will be remembered by how wisely it managed debate and crafted the bill to safeguard a vital national asset.
From reflection to reform
National reflection without institutional reform is sentiment without consequence.
The founding principle of independence, “One Namibia, One Nation”, was not a slogan of convenience but a guide to preserve constitutional order.
History will judge this legislature not by the length of its speeches, but by the courage of its decisions. Democratic maturity is collective maturity.
The eighth legislature has the opportunity to turn oil from a potential source of division into a catalyst for unity. It can elevate debate above suspicion, governance above theatrics, and national interest above factional instinct.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They are solely our personal views as citizens and pan-Africanists.
