The Hidden Cost of Fishrot

There May be a much larger economic cost to Fishrot than the money allegedly stolen or diverted from Namibia’s fishing industry.

I am wondering whether anyone has tried to quantify the damage done to Namibia’s international financial reputation – and, by extension, to ordinary Namibians trying to participate in the global digital economy.

After Fishrot, Namibia entered an era of increasingly stringent banking, anti-money-laundering and compliance controls. The country was placed on the FATF grey list in 2024 and only exited it in June 2026.

I am not suggesting that Fishrot alone caused Namibia’s greylisting or that it alone explains the commercial decisions of international payment platforms. But it raises an important economic question: To what extent have major corruption and money-laundering scandals contributed to Namibia being treated internationally as a higher-risk financial jurisdiction?

And what has that reputational and compliance cost meant for ordinary Namibians?

Namibian musicians, filmmakers, photographers, influencers or other digital creators can potentially reach millions of people globally. Yet turning that audience into income remains extraordinarily difficult.

Namibians have faced restricted PayPal functionality. Namibia remains outside important international creator monetisation systems. TikTok monetisation is limited, and YouTube monetisation opportunities available to creators in larger markets are not equally available here.

South Africa, meanwhile, participates far more fully in the same global digital economy, despite being part of the same Common Monetary Area and despite the Namibia dollar being pegged directly to the rand.

This creates an extraordinary form of economic isolation.

A young Namibian can create the same video, song, photograph or online product as somebody in Cape Town, Berlin or London, reach the same global audience – and yet may be unable to monetise that audience through the same payment infrastructure.

What is the economic value of the income Namibia is losing every year because of this? How many creators use South African or European accounts simply to receive money? How much digital export income never enters Namibia’s banking system? How many freelancers, musicians, software developers and small businesses are effectively prevented from selling internationally because receiving a US$50 payment is more complicated than producing the work itself?

And perhaps most importantly: To what extent is this the hidden economic legacy of financial scandals such as Fishrot? The cost of corruption may therefore be much greater than the amount appearing on a charge sheet.

If corruption damages a country’s financial credibility, the eventual bill is paid by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the corruption – through additional compliance, restricted banking relationships, fewer payment options and exclusion from international platforms.

It would be fascinating to see The Namibian investigate and attempt to put a figure on this. Not: how much did Fishrot cost Namibia? But: How much is Fishrot – and the financial reputation created by scandals like it – still costing Namibians who are trying to earn money legitimately from the rest of the world?

– Wikusvan der Merwe

The post The Hidden Cost of Fishrot appeared first on The Namibian.