Urban and Rural Development Minister James Sankwasa has drawn a firm line in the sand. By banning the auctioning of land by local authorities and warning councillors that land belongs to the state, not to councils or private interests, he has confronted one of Namibia’s most enduring and destructive governance failures. His declaration that abuse of land allocation will no longer be tolerated is both timely and necessary. For too long, land has been treated as a commodity for speculation rather than a public resource meant to secure shelter, dignity, and opportunity for ordinary citizens.
The price of land sits at the heart of Namibia’s housing crisis. Across the country, informal settlements continue to sprawl uncontrollably, stretching municipal services to breaking point and exposing thousands of families to unsafe living conditions. These settlements did not appear by accident. They are the physical evidence of a market deliberately structured to exclude the majority. When land is auctioned at high market prices, only those with capital or political connections can participate. The rest are left with no option but to occupy unserviced land and build shacks where they can.
Anyone entering most Namibian towns today is greeted by seas of corrugated iron and plastic sheet structures. These are not just “eyesores”, as some dismissively label them. They are human settlements born out of policy failure, corruption, and institutional complacency. They reflect a system where councils chase revenue through land auctions instead of fulfilling their constitutional mandate to plan inclusive, accessible towns. Minister Sankwasa’s intervention is therefore not merely administrative; it is a necessary correction to a deeply distorted model of urban development.
Over the years, land allocation has featured in scandal after scandal. Newly proclaimed towns have become fertile ground for exploitation. Those with advance knowledge of declarations rush to acquire land at minimal prices before the public even knows what is happening. Soon after, the same plots appear in private hands, sold at inflated prices beyond the reach of civil servants, young professionals, or first-time homeowners. The cycle repeats: councils claim to be revenue-strapped, land is auctioned again, and property developers walk away with large tracts that are later converted into gated estates and luxury housing.
The ordinary Namibian is locked out of this arrangement at every stage. The teacher, nurse, police officer, or small business owner cannot compete with corporate developers at auctions. They cannot pay speculative prices. And when they eventually seek alternatives, the only land left is unplanned, unserviced, and illegal. The state then spends years playing catch-up, trying to regularise settlements that should never have formed in the first place.
This is why Sankwasa’s declaration that land belongs to the state is significant. It reasserts a principle that has long been forgotten: local authorities are custodians, not owners. Their duty is to administer land in the public interest. When councils behave like private sellers chasing the highest bidder, they abandon that duty. Public land should be allocated strategically, prioritising affordable housing, economic inclusion, and long-term urban planning, not short-term revenue generation.
Critics will argue that councils rely on land sales to fund infrastructure and services. That argument, however, reveals a deeper structural problem: municipalities have become financially dependent on speculative land practices because national funding models have failed to provide sustainable alternatives. But exploiting land markets to finance governance is a short-sighted solution. It entrenches inequality, inflates property bubbles, and ultimately increases the cost of providing services when unplanned settlements expand faster than infrastructure can keep up.
There is also a moral dimension to this debate. Housing is not simply a commodity; it is a human need. When access to land is determined by wealth rather than need, society institutionalises exclusion. It should trouble policymakers that a country with abundant land resources has thousands of citizens living without tenure security, sanitation, or electricity. This is not a natural outcome of population growth; it is the result of deliberate policy choices.
Sankwasa’s warning to councillors that abuse of land allocation will no longer be tolerated must now be matched with concrete action. Regulations must be clarified, land allocation processes must be transparent, and oversight mechanisms must be strengthened. Public land registries should be accessible. Allocation criteria should be published. Deals concluded behind closed doors must end. Where corruption has occurred, prosecutions must follow. Without enforcement, ministerial statements risk becoming yet another well-intended announcement lost in the bureaucratic fog.
Additionally, Namibia needs a national rethink on urban land policy. Affordable housing schemes cannot succeed if land remains priced out of reach. Innovative approaches, such as long-term leaseholds, serviced land schemes, and state-supported incremental housing, must be expanded. Councils should be incentivised to develop inclusive layouts rather than exclusive suburbs. Planning frameworks must anticipate population growth instead of reacting to crises.
Property developers also have a role to play. Development is essential to economic growth, but it must not be predatory. When large tracts of public land are bought cheaply, developed minimally, and resold at exorbitant prices, the private sector becomes a driver of inequality rather than progress. Responsible development should align profit with social outcomes, not exploit regulatory gaps for windfall gains.
Ultimately, the question is simple: Who is Namibia’s land for? If the answer is “for all citizens”, then policies must reflect that principle. Minister Sankwasa has taken a bold step by challenging a system that has benefited the few at the expense of the many. He deserves commendation for recognising the root of the housing crisis and confronting it directly.
But this moment must not pass without follow-through. The informal settlements spreading across our towns are a warning sign. They tell us that the status quo is unsustainable. Land governance reform is no longer optional; it is urgent. If we fail to act now, we will cement a future where exclusion is normalised and opportunity is fenced behind auction gates.
Namibia can and must do better. Land is a public trust, not a private jackpot. It is time to govern it as such.
