Namibia’s ranking as the fifth safest country in Africa for money laundering and financial crime risk is, by any reasonable measure, good news. According to the 2025 Basel Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Financial Crime Risk Index, the country continues on a positive trajectory, recording steady improvements over the past three years. With a score declining from 5.09 in 2023 to 4.78 in 2025 on a scale where lower scores indicate lower risk, Namibia now stands among the continent’s stronger performers in safeguarding its financial system.
This achievement deserves recognition. At a time when illicit financial flows, corruption, and transnational crime are increasingly sophisticated and borderless, maintaining and improving resilience is no small feat. For a relatively small economy that is deeply integrated into regional and global financial systems, Namibia’s performance sends an important signal: institutions matter, regulatory frameworks matter, and consistent oversight yields results.
However, the true value of this ranking lies not in celebration alone, but in a sober understanding of what it does, and does not, mean.
The Basel AML Index is not a popularity contest, nor is it a declaration that money laundering does not occur within a country’s borders. Rather, it is a composite risk assessment that measures vulnerability across several dimensions, including the quality of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) frameworks, corruption levels, financial transparency, judicial independence, and the effectiveness of public institutions. In short, Namibia’s ranking reflects relative strength in systems, laws, and enforcement capacity, not immunity from financial crime.
Seen in this light, the improvement is significant. It suggests that reforms undertaken in recent years, whether in financial regulation, banking supervision, or cooperation between law enforcement and regulatory bodies, are yielding measurable outcomes. It also places Namibia in a more favourable position compared to many African peers who continue to struggle with weak enforcement, political interference, and high levels of illicit financial activity.
For investors, development partners, and international financial institutions, such a ranking matters. Perceptions of financial crime risk influence investment decisions, access to correspondent banking relationships, and a country’s ability to integrate smoothly into the global economy. In an era where “de-risking” by international banks can isolate entire regions, Namibia’s standing offers reassurance that it is not a weak link in the global financial chain.
Yet this is precisely where caution is required. Rankings can create a false sense of comfort if they are misunderstood as an endpoint rather than a checkpoint. Being the fifth safest in Africa does not mean Namibia is “safe enough”. Africa, as a continent, continues to face structural challenges related to illicit financial flows, estimated to drain billions of dollars annually from economies that can least afford it. Ranking well within a high-risk regional context should motivate deeper vigilance, not relaxed oversight.
Moreover, financial crime evolves faster than regulation. Money laundering today is no longer confined to suitcases of cash or simple shell companies. It now exploits digital platforms, cryptocurrencies, trade misinvoicing, procurement systems, and increasingly complex cross-border transactions. Namibia’s improving score reflects past and present controls, but the real test will be whether institutions can anticipate and adapt to future risks.
There is also a domestic dimension that cannot be ignored. Ordinary Namibians often experience financial crime not as an abstract global risk, but through corruption scandals, procurement irregularities, unexplained wealth, and the slow erosion of trust in public institutions. A strong AML ranking will ring hollow if citizens continue to see few consequences for high-level financial misconduct. Enforcement, not legislation alone, is what ultimately anchors credibility.
In this sense, the Basel AML Index should be read as both commendation and challenge. It commends Namibia for moving in the right direction, but it also challenges policymakers to consolidate gains. That means adequately resourcing regulators, protecting the independence of oversight institutions, and ensuring that political considerations do not weaken enforcement. It also means extending vigilance beyond banks to non-financial sectors such as real estate, legal services, casinos, and emerging fintech platforms, areas increasingly used to launder illicit funds.
Transparency must remain central. Public access to information, asset declarations, beneficial ownership registers, and open procurement systems are not merely governance ideals; they are frontline defences against financial crime. If Namibia wishes to maintain or improve its standing, these measures cannot be optional or selectively applied.
There is, finally, a regional leadership opportunity embedded in this ranking. Namibia’s performance positions it to be more than a quiet achiever. It can play a constructive role in regional cooperation, information sharing, and capacity building within SADC and beyond. Financial crime does not respect borders, and collective resilience is only as strong as its weakest link.
Our position is clear: Namibia’s ranking in the 2025 Basel AML Index is a meaningful and positive development that reflects real institutional progress. It should be welcomed and acknowledged. But it must not be mistaken for a clean bill of health. The fight against money laundering and financial crime is not won through rankings but through sustained political will, consistent enforcement, and public accountability.
If this report is treated as encouragement to do more, rather than reassurance to do less, then it will have served its purpose.
