GIDEON SHAPUMBA
Namibia’s proposed amendments to the Petroleum Act deserve far more public debate than they are getting. Behind technical phrases like “streamlining decision-making” lies a major shift in how the country’s most valuable resource could be controlled, one that risks giving excessive power to the Executive with little parliamentary oversight.
The issue is not whether Namibia should benefit more from its petroleum resources. It absolutely should. The concern is how the government plans to achieve this. Moving key petroleum functions to the Presidency under a new Upstream Petroleum Unit is alarming. In reality, it would allow a small group of unelected officials, reporting directly to the Director General and deputy, to control exploration rights, production licenses, and decisions affecting billions in national wealth.
Such centralization goes against the principles of constitutional governance. It blurs the separation of pow
ers and reduces Parliament’s role in overseeing strategic national assets. Once major decisions shift to State House, oversight becomes symbolic and public accountability weakens. Namibia risks replacing strong institutions with personalized decision-making.
Another serious question is whether the new officials assigned to this role have the necessary experience, independence, and technical expertise. Managing petroleum policy requires deep knowledge and integrity. These qualities cannot be assumed simply because someone has been politically appointed. Many in the industry quietly doubt that the Presidency’s new leadership has the expertise required for effective upstream petroleum governance.
The “major decision doctrine,” used in many democracies, is relevant here: decisions with enormous national impact must not be left to unelected administrators. They must be debated and approved by Parliament. Petroleum management clearly falls into this category. Parliament must not surrender its constitutional duty to
protect public resources through transparent, open oversight.
Equally troubling is the silence of the private sector. Industry’s lack of public engagement is not caution, it is dangerous. By failing to defend transparent and predictable governance, companies risk creating a future where investment confidence erodes due to arbitrary decision-making.
Namibia is at a pivotal point. Offshore oil discoveries bring the possibility of transformative national wealth, but also the risk of the mismanagement that has crippled many resource-rich countries. To avoid that, Namibia must strengthen, not weaken, institutions of accountability. The country’s petroleum future cannot be left to a few unelected officials behind the walls of State House.
True national sovereignty means shared, transparent management of public wealth, not quiet centralization of power. Parliament must step up, demand openness, and ensure decisions made in the name of the people are also made before the people. Centralizing petroleum governance unde
r the Presidency will not improve service delivery; instead, it will create an environment where those with proximity to State House benefit at the expense of the nation.
