Namibia’s public institutions have been put on notice, and this time, the warning is not wrapped in bureaucratic niceties. It is blunt, urgent, and overdue. Festus Mbandeka has sounded the alarm: failure by state institutions to comply with existing laws is costing the government dearly, in courtrooms, in public funds, and in credibility.
This is not a theoretical concern. It is a systemic problem that has quietly drained state resources and eroded public trust for years. What Mbandeka has done is simply to say out loud what many insiders already know, that too many government entities operate with a dangerous mix of legal ignorance, complacency, and, at times, outright disregard for procedure.
The consequences are as predictable as they are damaging.
Every avoidable court case represents taxpayer money wasted. Legal battles involving the state are rarely cheap, and when government loses, as it often does in cases rooted in poor compliance, the financial burden multiplies. Settlements, legal fees, and damages all come from the public purse. That means fewer resources for schools, hospitals, infrastructure, and service delivery. In a country where developmental needs remain pressing, this is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable.
But the financial cost is only part of the story.
The deeper and more corrosive consequence is the steady erosion of public trust. When citizens see government repeatedly losing cases due to procedural failures, unlawful decisions, or administrative incompetence, confidence in state institutions declines. The perception that government acts arbitrarily or without regard for the law undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.
Mbandeka is correct to link compliance with constitutional protection, transparency, and accountability. These are not abstract ideals; they are practical safeguards. When institutions understand and follow the law, they reduce risk, improve decision-making, and build credibility. When they do not, they expose the state to exactly the kind of crises Namibia can ill afford.
What is particularly troubling is that many of these legal disputes are avoidable. The attorney general has made it clear: better understanding of legal frameworks, timely consultation, and proper adherence to procedures could prevent a significant portion of litigation involving the state.
This raises an uncomfortable question: why is this not already happening?
Part of the answer lies in capacity gaps. Some regional councils, local authorities, and state-owned enterprises simply lack the legal expertise required to navigate increasingly complex regulatory environments. But capacity constraints cannot be used as a permanent excuse. Where expertise is lacking, it must be built, sourced, or consulted. Ignorance of the law has never been a defence, and it certainly cannot be one for institutions entrusted with public responsibility.
Another part of the problem is cultural.
There remains, in parts of the public sector, a worrying tendency to treat compliance as an administrative burden rather than a core obligation. Procedures are bypassed in the name of urgency. Legal advice is sought too late, often only after problems have escalated into full-blown disputes. In some cases, there is even resistance to oversight, as if accountability were an inconvenience rather than a duty.
This culture must change.
Mbandeka’s nationwide engagement campaign is a step in the right direction. It recognises that compliance is not just about enforcement but also about education, communication, and cooperation. By clarifying when institutions should seek legal advice and strengthening relationships between stakeholders, the office of the attorney general is attempting to close the gap between law and practice.
However, engagement alone will not be enough.
There must also be consequences for persistent non-compliance. Institutions that repeatedly expose the state to legal risk cannot continue to operate without accountability. Leadership must be held responsible not only for financial losses but also for the reputational damage inflicted on government as a whole. Without accountability, warnings such as Mbandeka’s risk becoming just another statement filed away and forgotten.
Equally important is the need for proactive legal governance.
Compliance should not begin when a problem arises; it should be embedded in everyday operations. This means integrating legal review into decision-making processes, ensuring that policies are aligned with statutory requirements, and fostering a mindset where legality is non-negotiable. It also means investing in training and capacity-building so that officials at all levels understand their obligations.
The cost of doing so will always be lower than the cost of litigation.
Mbandeka’s call for honest feedback from regional and local leaders is also significant. Too often, inefficiencies and gaps in service delivery remain hidden beneath layers of administrative silence. Open dialogue can expose weaknesses and create opportunities for reform. But this requires a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths — something not all institutions are eager to do.
Yet the alternative is far worse.
If state agencies continue to ignore legal frameworks, the consequences will escalate. Court losses will increase. Financial strain will deepen. Public trust will deteriorate further. And, perhaps most damaging of all, the legitimacy of government decision-making will be called into question.
Namibia cannot afford such a trajectory.
At its core, this issue is about responsibility. Public institutions are not private entities free to operate as they please. They are custodians of public resources and instruments of the Constitution. Their actions must reflect that reality.
Mbandeka has issued a clear warning. It is now up to state agencies to decide whether they will heed it or continue down a path that leads to unnecessary loss, avoidable embarrassment, and diminishing public confidence.
The choice should be obvious; comply or pay.
