President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s directive to bypass standard government tender procedures for a rapid-build housing initiative reflects a sense of urgency that few Namibians would dispute. The country’s housing backlog continues to grow, informal settlements expand year after year, and the promise of affordable shelter remains out of reach for thousands of families. Any initiative that claims it can deliver houses within days at a cost as low as N$50,000 will inevitably attract attention and hope.
But hope, when combined with haste and limited oversight, can also produce costly consequences.
The proposal currently receiving presidential support involves the use of alternative building technologies, particularly fibre-cement sandwich panels, which proponents say can allow houses to be constructed in as little as two days. The concept is attractive: fast, inexpensive homes built by innovative, youth-driven companies. In theory, such an approach could transform how Namibia tackles its housing crisis.
Yet the decision to bypass competitive bidding and traditional procurement safeguards raises serious questions that cannot be ignored.
Competitive tendering in government projects exists for a reason. While it is often criticised for bureaucracy and delays, it is also one of the few mechanisms available to ensure transparency, fairness and quality control in public spending. Removing it entirely, even in the name of efficiency, opens the door to risks that Namibia has encountered before.
Namibians need not look far back for a cautionary tale.
The Mass Housing Development Programme launched in 2013 was introduced with similar ambition. It promised thousands of affordable homes and was presented as a cornerstone solution to the housing crisis. Yet the programme quickly became synonymous with delays, ballooning costs and serious quality concerns. Houses that were meant to be affordable were priced beyond the reach of the very citizens they were intended to serve.
Perhaps the most striking symbol of that failure can still be seen today in parts of Otjomuise and other areas, where completed houses remain empty while thousands of people continue living in shacks. The country therefore faces a peculiar paradox: empty houses on the one hand and a severe housing shortage on the other.
It is a painful reminder that solving housing challenges requires more than speed and enthusiasm. It requires careful planning, proper oversight and sustainable financial models.
The current push toward alternative housing technologies may indeed hold promise. Across the world, modular construction, prefabricated panels and other innovative building systems have reduced construction costs and improved efficiency. Namibia should absolutely explore such options. The housing backlog is too large for conventional brick-and-mortar construction alone to solve.
However, innovation must still be tested, regulated and monitored.
The danger of removing procurement safeguards entirely is that it could trigger a sudden mushrooming of alternative housing solutions, many of which may not adequately protect the end-user. Without clear standards and certification processes, substandard structures could easily find their way into communities already struggling with infrastructure challenges.
Low-cost housing should not translate into low-quality housing.
The homes being built today must be capable of lasting decades. They must withstand Namibia’s climate, ensure basic safety and provide dignity to the families who live in them. If shortcuts are taken in design, materials or construction standards, the country may find itself replacing entire neighbourhoods within a generation at far greater cost than initially saved.
Furthermore, the absence of competitive bidding risks creating a different kind of inefficiency. Even when intentions are genuine, removing open competition can limit innovation rather than encourage it. Other companies and technologies that might offer better solutions or improved pricing may simply never have the opportunity to present their proposals.
This is where the familiar phrase becomes relevant: the devil is in the details.
If the government intends to accelerate housing delivery, then reforms should focus on improving procurement efficiency rather than eliminating procurement safeguards entirely. Faster evaluation processes, simplified tender documentation for smaller projects and pre-approved technology certification systems could all help speed up housing delivery while preserving transparency.
Equally important is the need for strict building standards for any alternative housing technology introduced into Namibia. Independent testing, engineering certification and clear maintenance guidelines should be mandatory before such systems are rolled out at scale.
Public trust in housing programmes has already been weakened by previous disappointments. Rebuilding that trust will require openness, accountability and demonstrable quality.
The President is correct in identifying housing as an urgent national priority. Namibia’s urban population continues to grow rapidly, and informal settlements are expanding faster than municipal infrastructure can keep pace. The country cannot afford policy paralysis.
But urgency should not mean abandoning the safeguards that protect public funds and public safety.
Instead, Namibia should strive for a balanced approach: reduce red tape where it unnecessarily slows development while maintaining the checks that prevent costly mistakes.
If the country gets that balance right, alternative building technologies could indeed become part of the solution to Namibia’s housing crisis.
If it gets it wrong, however, the nation risks repeating a familiar cycle: ambitious housing promises followed by empty houses, wasted resources and communities still waiting for the dignity of a place to call home.
