Namibia cannot afford to let corruption steal its future

Namibia is approaching an economic crossroads. The discovery and development of oil and gas resources could fundamentally alter the country’s economic prospects, attract unprecedented investment and create opportunities for generations to come.

But there is another possibility, one that the country must confront honestly: that the wealth created by these resources could be weakened, diverted or captured by corruption.

The warning from Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) director-general Bryan Eiseb that corruption could derail Namibia’s oil and gas ambitions should therefore not be dismissed as another routine anti-corruption statement. It should be treated as a warning to government, business, public institutions and citizens alike.

Namibia has an opportunity to learn from countries where natural-resource wealth has failed to translate into broad-based prosperity because institutions were too weak, oversight was compromised and public resources became vulnerable to private interests.

We should not wait for that failure before strengthening our defences.

The ACC’s latest figures from the Erongo Region provide an important indication of the scale of the challenge. The commission reported an accumulated caseload of 94 matters, with 20 cases having been reported during the two financial years under review. Fifty-five cases were under investigation, 21 were before the courts, five had been closed because of insufficient evidence, four had been referred back for further investigation and seven awaited decisions by the Prosecutor-General.

These figures deserve scrutiny, but they also require responsible interpretation.

A reported case is not a conviction. Registration of a complaint does not establish wrongdoing, nor does an investigation necessarily mean that an accused person will ultimately be prosecuted or convicted. The presumption of innocence must remain inviolable.

That principle is particularly important when allegations involve public officials, municipalities or state institutions.

But due process must never become an excuse for institutional inertia.

One conviction among the matters highlighted by the ACC may reflect the complexity of corruption investigations and the evidentiary burden required in court. It may also raise legitimate questions about investigative capacity, prosecutorial processes and the ability of the state to convert credible allegations into successful prosecutions.

The answer cannot be to demand convictions at any cost. That would undermine justice.

The answer is to build investigations and prosecutions capable of producing outcomes that withstand judicial scrutiny.

The reported prevalence of bribery in Erongo is particularly concerning. Allegations involving attempts to bribe officials associated with NamRA, NaTIS and customs suggest that corruption risks exist at precisely those points where citizens and businesses interact directly with government.

Such vulnerabilities require more than disciplinary action after the fact. They require systems designed to prevent opportunities for corruption in the first place.

Digital processes, transparent decision-making, effective internal controls, rotation of officials in high-risk positions, declarations of interests, whistle-blower protection and regular independent audits should become standard features of public administration.

And where corruption is uncovered, consequences must follow.

This becomes even more urgent as Namibia prepares for the economic consequences of oil and gas development.

Large contracts, procurement processes, infrastructure projects, licensing arrangements, land transactions and local-content opportunities can create significant economic benefits. They can also create opportunities for conflicts of interest, political patronage, inflated contracts and the diversion of public value.

The integrity of these processes will determine whether Namibia’s resource wealth becomes a national asset or another source of inequality.

Government must therefore act before the largest revenues arrive.

The new National Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan provides an opportunity to establish a stronger framework. But another strategy document will mean little if it is not accompanied by implementation, measurable targets, adequate resources and consequences for institutions that fail to comply.

The ACC’s concerns about limited funding and resistance from some institutions to staff training should not be taken lightly.

It is unacceptable if public institutions regard corruption-prevention programmes as an inconvenience. Senior officials must understand that prevention is not an optional public-relations exercise. It is part of their responsibility to protect public resources.

The ACC itself, however, must also remain accountable.

Greater engagement with journalists and the public is welcome. The commission’s pledge to move away from a “silent institutional approach” is encouraging because secrecy can undermine public confidence.

But transparency must be accompanied by discipline. The ACC should provide as much information as possible without compromising investigations, privacy, fair-trial rights or the presumption of innocence.

The media, too, has a responsibility. Investigative journalism and public scrutiny are essential components of a functioning democracy, but allegations must be reported accurately and fairly. The media must expose wrongdoing without becoming a court of public opinion.

The broader message from Erongo is therefore bigger than the 94 cases reported by the ACC.

Namibia needs a culture in which corruption is neither normalised nor tolerated.

It needs public servants who understand that public office is a responsibility, not an opportunity for personal enrichment. It needs businesses that refuse to buy access through bribery. It needs citizens who report wrongdoing. It needs prosecutors and investigators with the resources and independence to pursue credible cases. And it needs political leaders prepared to support accountability even when it becomes uncomfortable.

Most importantly, Namibia must ensure that the institutions entrusted with managing its future wealth are stronger than the interests seeking to capture that wealth.

Oil and gas may give Namibia an extraordinary opportunity.

Corruption must not be allowed to steal it.

The real test will not be how much wealth Namibia discovers beneath the ground or offshore. It will be whether the country has the institutional integrity to ensure that this wealth improves the lives of its people.

That responsibility begins now, not when the first major revenues arrive, and certainly not after the damage has been done.