PAUL T. SHIPALE (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar)
Reflecting on the benefits of former presidents, especially President Nangolo Mbumba
Before engaging the proposed subject matter, it is important to pause and reflect on two significant public remembrance events held last week.
A military funeral was accorded to former minister Erkki Ndineinge Nghidipohamba ya Nghimtina, who was laid to rest at the Eenhana Memorial Shrine on Saturday, 21 February 2026. We equally acknowledge the unveiling of the memorial tombstone for the victims of the 19 February 1988 Oshakati Barclays Bank bomb blast, now known as First National Bank (FNB), which claimed 27 lives and left many injured.
We particularly extend appreciation to Namibia’s Second President, H.E. Dr Hifikepunye Pohamba, for his moving tribute. He described the late Nghimtina as a disciplined and loyal foot soldier, one who listened to instructions from his leaders and elders and never wavered. Indeed, Nghimtina remained steadfast even during moments when others chose to drift and form their own political movements, sometimes dangerously bordering on tribalism and ethnicity or what has been termed “ethnic entrepreneurship”.
For his loyalty and consistency, he was appointed by the Founding Father, Dr Sam Nujoma, as a member of the Politburo of SWAPO’s Central Committee, became a founding member of the Sam Nujoma Foundation, and served as Minister of Defence, among other portfolios. In fact, Nghimtima was one of the many people the Founding Father trusted the most and could count on from that part of the country, apart from President Pohamba, the former Governor of Ohangwena Region Hon. Usko Nghaamwa, Ohamba of Oukwanyama Traditional Authority Meekulu Martha Mwadinomho ya Kristiana Nelumbu, among many others.
We are also grateful for the testimony shared by businessman Ben Zaaruka during the unveiling of the tombstone dedicated to the victims of the Oshakati bomb blast memorial. His reflections as a witness and former SWAPO internal wing cadre provided important institutional memory. He recounted how these tragic events were linked to the broader regional conflict dynamics, particularly following the historic Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. That confrontation was preceded by engagements around Mavinga, involving FAPLA forces, PLAN combatants against the UNITA rebels and the apartheid South African Defence Force (SADF), and later the involvement of the Cuban internationalist troops who established air superiority to force the apartheid forces to the negotiating table. These events form part of the complex historical tapestry of Southern Africa’s liberation struggle.
We also recognise the wisdom of respected Oshiwambo author Tatekulu AbedNego Lesheni Nghifikwa, whose reflections on Ubuntu remind us that education without humility and respect for elders is incomplete. His words resonated deeply, particularly when he reminded all and sundry that a child who does not greet elders properly, regardless of academic achievement, lacks the spirit of Ubuntu, the understanding that our humanity is affirmed through recognition of the humanity of others. He said, “Okaana kakena outeku, oha Keli monikilwa. Inaka lambela, okapumbwa okuhembwa/okutengulwa”, meaning the child needs proper guidance and upbringing. This cultural reminder is relevant to our present debate.
The subject at hand
Public discussion has intensified concerning retirement arrangements and official residences of former presidents under Act 18 of 2004, particularly amid criticism directed at President Nangolo Mbumba.
The debate has centred on public expenditure, proportionality, and fairness during a time of economic strain. These concerns are legitimate in any constitutional democracy. However, the matter calls for calm constitutional reasoning rather than emotional reaction.
This issue is not merely about a residence or pension. It concerns how Namibia applies its constitutional obligations to a former head of state and how that application is perceived within the current socioeconomic climate.
The constitutional position is clear
Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia mandates Parliament to provide pensions and allowances to former presidents and their surviving spouses.
The wording is mandatory
Accordingly, Act 18 of 2004 provides the legislative framework governing these benefits. Therefore, President Mbumba’s entitlements are not discretionary political favours; they arise directly from constitutional and statutory obligations.
The framework is neither improvised nor personalised. It forms part of a structured legal architecture designed to preserve institutional dignity and continuity after presidential service.
President Mbumba’s current situation
President Mbumba assumed office during a constitutionally sensitive and challenging period and served in a stabilising capacity. His tenure emphasised continuity and stewardship needed for a consequential leader rather than electoral contestation initiated by his own mandate.
Now, having left office, he finds himself at the centre of public debate regarding retirement benefits, particularly housing arrangements and state support.
A critical point must be emphasised: President Mbumba did not design the retirement framework from which he now benefits. He is a beneficiary of pre-existing constitutional and legislative provisions.
To hold him personally responsible for the structure itself conflates institutional policy with individual character. The constitutional question is not whether he “deserves” benefits. The Constitution and Parliament have already answered that. The relevant question is whether the framework remains proportionate and sustainable under present economic realities.
Public concern: proportionality and symbolism
Namibia faces fiscal pressures, youth unemployment, and increasing demands for public services. In such a context, visible expenditure on former leaders inevitably invites scrutiny.
Even lawful benefits carry symbolic weight.
Legitimate policy questions include:
• Should retirement benefits reflect length of service?
• Should housing arrangements be recalibrated in light of fiscal realities?
• Does the framework reflect shared national sacrifice?
These are valid democratic enquiries.
However, lawful entitlements cannot be equated with excess absent factual analysis. Emotion cannot replace constitutional reasoning.
The rule of law boundary
A crucial constitutional boundary must not be crossed. If President Mbumba’s benefits are grounded in valid legislation enacted pursuant to Article 33 and Act 18 of 2004, retroactively diminishing them would raise serious rule of law concerns. Legal certainty and legitimate expectation protect not only former presidents but all citizens.
A constitutional democracy cannot alter vested rights merely due to shifting public sentiment.
That said, Parliament, and not any arm of the state, retains full authority to reform the framework prospectively. If lawmakers determine that:
• Benefits should be graduated by length of service.
• Housing models should be adjusted.
• Financial caps should apply to future office holders.
Such reforms would be constitutionally permissible provided they operate forward, not backward. Importantly, reform must come through the legislative process, not through the whims or caprices of individuals unfamiliar with constitutional law.
Transparency as the path forward
The debate would benefit greatly from factual clarity.
Public trust depends on understanding:
• The actual cost of all former presidents’ benefits;
• The percentage of the national budget involved;
• Long-term fiscal projections;
• Comparative practice in similar democracies.
Transparency strengthens, rather than undermines, institutional dignity.
Preserving institutional dignity
A former president represents more than an individual biography, as he/she embodies a chapter in Namibia’s constitutional history.
Namibia’s peaceful transitions from founding president Dr. Sam Nujoma to Dr Hifikepunye Pohamba to Dr Hage Geingob and later to Dr Nangolo Mbumba reflect a culture of orderly succession and constitutional continuity.
Retirement frameworks are part of this architecture. They ensure that leaving office does not translate into insecurity or diminished national stature.
Critique of policy design is legitimate. Personalisation of institutional debate is not. Let us therefore give the necessary protections to our former Heads of State and preserve their legacies as it is done in other countries, including with the memorials and museums in their honour.
Conclusion: law, fairness, and democratic maturity
Namibia now faces a test of democratic maturity.
President Nangolo Mbumba is constitutionally entitled to retirement benefits under Article 33 and Act 18 of 2004. That legal position is clear.
Simultaneously, citizens are entitled to question whether the framework remains proportionate and sustainable.
These positions are not contradictory.
Defending the rule of law does not prevent reform. Calling for reform does not require undermining a former Head of State.
The true measure of democratic strength lies in harmonising constitutional obligation with evolving public expectations through reasoned deliberation, transparency, and lawful legislative action.
As Dr Hifikepunye Pohamba and respected elders have reminded us that those who fail to heed wisdom risk being swept away by strong currents as they fail to acknowledge where the elders had put the stepping stones on which to cross the strong currents, let us draw from our heritage of Ubuntu, honour our former presidents, preserve peace and stability, and uphold the enduring national ethos of “One Namibia, One Nation”.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers or this newspaper. They are solely our personal views as citizens and pan-Africanists.
