Nonsensical Political Projection: “We Want People With Skills and Capability”

The repeated political claim that Namibia requires “people with skills and capability” in leadership is often presented as a reformist ideal. However, when tested against the country’s legal framework, policy commitments, and political practice, this claim increasingly appears disconnected from reality.

In 2025, I submitted written recommendations covering all regions to the Omusati Regional Governor at the time. These recommendations called for merit-based nomination of councillors prior to elections, whether at constituency or local authority level. The purpose was to strengthen service delivery by ensuring that elected leaders possess demonstrable governance competence, administrative knowledge, and leadership capacity.

This approach is not novel. It is firmly aligned with Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution, which obliges administrative bodies and public officials to act fairly, reasonably, and lawfully. Service delivery failures at local and regional levels cannot be separated from the capabilities of those entrusted with public authority.

Policy Commitments Versus Legal Reality

Namibia’s National Development Plan 5 (NDP5) explicitly prioritises effective governance, institutional capacity, and public sector performance as prerequisites for inclusive economic growth. NDP5 recognises that weak leadership and limited administrative competence at regional and local levels undermine development outcomes and public trust.

Similarly, the Harambee Prosperity Plan (HPP I and II) places strong emphasis on accountability, performance management, and results-driven governance. The Harambee framework calls for leaders who can plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate development interventions, particularly at decentralised levels where service delivery directly affects communities.

However, these policy commitments stand in sharp contrast to the legal thresholds established by the Regional Councils Act, 1992 (Act No. 22 of 1992) and the Local Authorities Act, 1992 (Act No. 23 of 1992). These Acts prescribe minimal eligibility criteria for councillors, focusing primarily on citizenship and voter registration, while remaining silent on governance training, financial literacy, development planning, or leadership competence.

This contradiction allows individuals to occupy public office without any obligation to demonstrate alignment with the very governance standards demanded by national development policies.

Decentralisation Without Capacity Is Dysfunctional

Namibia’s Decentralisation Policy was adopted to bring decision-making closer to the people, improve service delivery, and enhance local accountability. However, decentralisation presupposes capacity. Without skilled leadership at regional and local levels, decentralisation risks becoming administrative fragmentation rather than empowerment.

Placing unprepared or underqualified individuals in leadership positions at decentralised institutions directly undermines the objectives of decentralisation itself. Authority without capacity produces inefficiency, conflict, and stalled development.

This policy failure becomes even more visible in the persistent conflict between regional governors and councillors. Governors are appointed under Article 110A of the Constitution, while councillors are elected under electoral laws. Yet, the absence of clear legal demarcation of powers creates overlapping authority, institutional rivalry, and paralysis.

Until these roles are legally harmonised, in line with decentralisation objectives and development policy commitments, service delivery will continue to suffer.

Education, Leadership, and Performance

Education remains a cornerstone of national development, and Namibia must continue expanding access to education for all willing citizens. At the same time, leadership cannot be reduced to academic credentials alone. Some individuals possess formal qualifications but lack ethical grounding or leadership competence, while others demonstrate exceptional leadership capacity despite limited formal education.

Nevertheless, public office must be performance-driven. This principle resonates with Namibia’s constitutional jurisprudence, including Rally for Democracy and Progress v Electoral Commission of Namibia (2010), which reaffirmed transparency, accountability, and respect for democratic processes as central to constitutional governance.

Leadership that fails to deliver measurable outcomes contradicts both constitutional obligations and national development objectives.

Democracy Undermined From Within

If political parties genuinely seek skilled and capable leadership, they must respect internal democratic processes. Allowing party members to elect leaders only to later discard or override those choices contradicts Article 1(2) of the Constitution, which affirms Namibia as a democratic state founded on the sovereignty of the people.

When internal electoral outcomes are ignored because they are politically inconvenient, democracy is reduced to a performative exercise. In such cases, political parties should be honest enough to abandon electoral pretence and openly appoint or headhunt individuals who meet clearly defined competence criteria, rather than exhausting members through elections whose outcomes are ultimately disregarded.

Aligning Law, Policy, and Practice

Namibia does not suffer from a lack of development plans, policy frameworks, or visionary rhetoric. What is missing is alignment between law, policy, and political practice.

Until leadership selection mechanisms reflect the governance standards articulated in NDP5, the Harambee Prosperity Plan, and the Decentralisation Policy, calls for “skills and capability” will remain hollow projections.

Namibians deserve leadership that is competent, accountable, ethically grounded, and democratically legitimate. Anything less undermines not only service delivery, but the very credibility of the state itself.