Lazarus Kwedhi
The government, through the Tripartite Committee—comprising representatives from the state, employers, and employees—is currently drafting the Occupational Safety and Health Bill (OSH Bill). Once completed, the bill will be gazetted as an Act of Parliament. This Act will provide the legal and administrative framework to ensure a safe and healthy working environment for every employee, including a mechanism for dispute resolution and compliance with the OSH Act.
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) is not a new concept in the Namibian labour market. It was incorporated in Chapter 4 of the Namibian Labour Act, 2007 (Act No. 11 of 2007), as amended, in alignment with International Labour Organisation standards. OSH is now recognised not merely as a workplace policy but as a fundamental human right that carries a collective responsibility. It should not be reduced to finger-pointing and blame-shifting among stakeholders within the Tripartite Committee.
While OSH is already part of Namibia’s labour legislation, integrating and consolidating it into a single Act of Parliament is a positive step toward addressing contemporary issues through legal reform. However, the key question remains: how will this differ from the status quo or from other well-written yet poorly implemented public policies? The effectiveness of the proposed law can only be measured once it is gazetted and implemented. Until then, any claims of reform may be premature—akin to placing the cart before the horse. This risks undermining the very principles behind change management strategies such as Business Process Reengineering and Management by objectives, both of which are intended to enhance public sector performance and value.
With that in mind, this article highlights some of the current gaps in Namibia’s OSH legal framework, drawing on inputs from the OSH Bill workshop held at Mercure Hotel in Windhoek from 20–21 May 2025.
The existing OSH legal framework primarily focuses on protecting employees from hazards posed by machinery and chemicals, ensuring safety equipment and clothing are provided. This approach often shifts the blame to inanimate risks, overlooking the psychological and emotional threats posed by human behaviour in the workplace. Many employees face mental stress or depression due to toxic workplace relationships, regardless of their roles or positions. This is particularly concerning in environments involving high-risk machinery or hazardous chemicals. Safety efforts may ultimately be ineffective if employees are emotionally or mentally abused by colleagues, supervisors, or managers.
Behaviours such as victimisation and arbitrary decision-making are not only root causes of emotional and mental health issues but can also lead to violence and workplace incidents. The safety and health of all employees depend significantly on human conduct and adherence to safety standards. Employees tend to perform better when they are in the right state of mind and working in a healthy, supportive environment. This article will not delve into the distinction between workplace-related emotional issues and those stemming from outside the workplace.
Another gap is the lack of consideration for Namibia’s native Restorative Justice (RJ) approach in cases where workplace incidents result in death or permanent injury. Currently, penalties for non-compliance with OSH laws are paid to the state, while victims or their dependents are left with condolences at funerals and separation packages or medical benefits under the Social Security Commission Act. Meanwhile, the employer often continues operations, hiring someone new to replace the deceased or injured worker, while the victim and their family are forgotten.
Namibia’s traditional RJ system is a cohesion-driven model that focuses on the harm done to the victim and their family, as well as the broken law. It aims to bring together the victim, offender, and community at a designated tribunal to address the offence and meet the needs of all involved. The goal is to bring closure and prevent recurrence by holding the offender accountable and compensating the victim and their dependents. In cases of injury or death, the offender and their family are required to pay “onkombambinzi”—not as a price for life, but to compensate for the loss and support the affected family, while also facing penalties from the community and governing authority.
Given this, the OSH legal framework must incorporate elements of native RJ. Employers who cause injury, death, or loss through workplace conditions should face consequences that include compensating the victim, restoring justice, and recognising the impact on the community. There is no justification for excluding RJ from OSH considerations. Employers must begin to value human life as much as—or more than—their profits. It is irresponsible to insure buildings, vehicles, and equipment while finding it unnecessary to insure the labour force. The OSH Bill should mandate an Employers’ Fund to ensure all workers are insured, with the fund being used to compensate victims and their families in the event of workplace-related harm.
The current OSH framework also uses vague terms like “adequate”, “sufficient”, and “appropriate” to describe safety equipment, training, and resources. Without clear thresholds, these terms are open to interpretation and can lead to inconsistent application. The OSH framework should establish minimum budgetary requirements for employers to invest in safety, health, and employee training, leaving no room for excuses around funding constraints.
In addition to budget clarity, the lack of OSH academic programmes at national institutions such as the University of Namibia and Namibia University of Science and Technology, along with concerns about the independence of OSH practitioners, remains a major obstacle. These professionals are expected to operate without fear or favour, but when employers fail to comply with the law, their independence is often compromised by the fear of “biting the hand that feeds them”.
