Namibia prides itself on being one of Africa’s most stable and investment-friendly countries. We regularly remind the world of our democratic credentials, our respect for the rule of law and our political stability. These are indeed achievements worth celebrating. But when it comes to the mining sector, one of the pillars of our economy, the latest global assessment suggests that pride alone will not secure our future.
The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2025 places Namibia squarely in the middle of the global rankings. Out of 84 jurisdictions assessed worldwide, Namibia sits at 59th, with an investment attractiveness score of 52.6. For a country with our mineral wealth, institutional stability and relatively small economy, that ranking is not good enough.
It is not even close to good enough.
This survey is not an academic exercise conducted in isolation. It reflects the views of mining executives who decide where billions of dollars in exploration and development capital will flow. Their decisions determine which countries discover new mines, which countries create jobs and which countries collect royalties and taxes that support national development.
When Namibia ranks in the middle of that list, it means investors are looking elsewhere.
The troubling part is that Namibia’s geological potential is not the problem. Far from it. The country is widely recognised as one of Africa’s most promising mineral jurisdictions. Our uranium deposits are world-class. Our diamond sector remains globally significant. Gold, base metals and critical minerals add further depth to our resource portfolio.
In short, Namibia is blessed with the kind of mineral wealth that many countries would envy.
Yet despite this natural advantage, investors remain cautious. Why?
Because policy uncertainty is undermining confidence.
Executives who participated in the survey raised concerns that should alarm policymakers in Windhoek. Among them is the proposal referenced in the country’s sixth national development plan (NDP6) suggesting that new mining projects should have 51% Namibian ownership.
On paper, such proposals may appear patriotic. They may be politically popular in certain circles. But in the real world of global investment, they send a very different message.
Exploration capital is among the most mobile forms of investment in the world. Mining companies have dozens of jurisdictions competing for their attention. If Namibia signals that investors may eventually lose control of the projects they finance, develop and risk their capital on, those investors will simply go elsewhere.
This is not speculation. It is economic reality.
No country can nationalise risk while expecting the private sector to supply capital.
The concerns raised in the Fraser survey go beyond ownership proposals. Mining executives also cited uncertainty around several pieces of legislation and regulatory frameworks affecting the sector. These include the implementation of the new Water Act, evolving environmental management regulations and proposed changes to minerals legislation.
Each of these laws may have legitimate policy objectives. Environmental protection is essential. Water management is critical in an arid country like Namibia. Regulatory oversight is necessary in any responsible mining jurisdiction.
But the problem arises when policies emerge without clarity, consistency or predictable implementation.
Investors do not fear regulation. They fear uncertainty.
If mining companies cannot clearly understand the rules that will govern their investments five, ten or twenty years into the future, they will hesitate. If policymakers send mixed signals about ownership structures, licensing conditions or regulatory requirements, confidence erodes.
And when confidence erodes, investment disappears.
For Namibia, this is not a theoretical risk. Mining is one of the most important sectors of our economy. It drives exports, contributes billions to government revenue and supports thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Entire towns, from the coast to the interior, depend on mining activity.
If exploration investment slows today, the mines that would have created jobs ten or fifteen years from now will simply never exist.
That is the silent danger behind these rankings.
Namibia’s policymakers must therefore confront an uncomfortable truth: our regulatory environment is becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
This is particularly frustrating because Namibia possesses many of the ingredients investors seek. We have political stability. We have functioning institutions. We have an independent judiciary and relatively low levels of corruption compared with many jurisdictions.
These are not small advantages.
But those advantages can be squandered if policymakers introduce unpredictable policies or send contradictory signals about the future of the mining sector.
For a country of Namibia’s size and economic structure, mediocrity is not an option. We cannot afford to rank in the middle of global mining jurisdictions when mining remains one of the engines of our national economy.
Countries with far less stability and far weaker institutions are competing aggressively for mining investment. Some of them are simplifying regulations, offering fiscal clarity and ensuring that investors understand exactly what to expect.
Namibia should be leading that competition, not struggling to keep pace.
Lawmakers must therefore take this survey as a warning rather than a criticism. It is a snapshot of investor sentiment at a specific moment in time. But sentiment can change quickly if governments act decisively.
First, policymakers must provide clear and consistent signals about ownership structures in the mining sector. If the country wishes to encourage local participation, it should do so through partnerships, incentives and empowerment mechanisms, not through proposals that risk scaring away exploration capital.
Second, regulatory frameworks must be stabilised. Laws affecting the mining sector must be coherent, predictable and implemented transparently. Investors must know the rules of the game before they commit their capital.
Finally, governments must recognise that global competition for mining investment is intensifying. Countries that provide clarity, stability and efficiency will attract capital. Those that create uncertainty will lose it.
Namibia’s mineral wealth is a national asset. But mineral wealth alone does not create prosperity.
If Namibia truly wishes to maximise the benefits of its natural resources, then lawmakers must ensure that the country is not merely a promising geological destination, but a globally competitive investment destination.
At present, the Fraser survey suggests we are falling short. That must change. And it must change quickly.
