Industry players have raised questions about Namibia Desert Diamonds (NAMDIA)’s decision to extend buyer arrangements involving three companies from the United Arab Emirates and Belgium, including concerns about fixed pricing, the concentration of diamond allocations and alleged conflicts of interest. NAMDIA spokesperson Beverley Coussement (BC) responds to questions from Namibia Business Review (NBR), explaining the company’s position on the buyer selection process, its commercial decisions and the governance measures in place.
NBR: NAMDIA’s governing statutes dictate clear procurement guidelines for onboarding and extending client purchasing agreements to guarantee equal opportunity and fair competition. Our investigations reveal that the buyer contracts for Samir Gems, SBMH and AC Diam were extended without adhering to these laid-down procurement processes. Can management explain why competitive bidding and open selection rules were bypassed for these specific entities, and who authorised these non-procedural extensions?
BC: The premise of the question is incorrect. NAMDIA’s sale of diamonds to its clients is a commercial sales activity and is not subject to public procurement processes applicable to the procurement of goods and services. The Request for Proposal was initially issued to all eligible clients, ensuring that the opportunity was made available on a competitive and transparent basis. The subsequent extension of the existing arrangements was undertaken during the transition to the onboarding of new clients and was approved by the Board. Accordingly, no competitive process was bypassed.
NBR: Standard diamond trading frameworks require dynamic, market-reflective pricing to maximise the value of Namibia’s state-owned resource. However, it is alleged that Samir, SBMH and AC Diam were granted exclusive fixed prices to buy under a preferential arrangement not accorded to any other clients on your list. What is the commercial and policy justification for offering a fixed pricing model to these three companies while requiring other local and international buyers to operate under variable market rates?
BC: NAMDIA acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the concentration of diamond purchase allocations among three clients and the implications for client diversification and the development of Namibia’s diamond beneficiation industry. However, it is important to clarify the circumstances under which the current arrangements were concluded and the commercial considerations underpinning the decisions.
Following the January 2025 security incident, NAMDIA has continued to operate under constrained conditions while navigating a downturn in the international diamond market. These circumstances have affected the company’s operational capacity and the manner in which it conducts its sales activities. NAMDIA has had to balance its commercial mandate with the practical limitations arising from the incident, the prevailing market environment and the absence of normal operating infrastructure.
NBR: According to industry disclosures, the total diamond purchase allocation under these extended agreements has been heavily consolidated, with Samir receiving 40%, SBMH receiving 40% and AC Diam receiving the remaining 20% of the specific volume block. What strategic metric or value-addition audit did NAMDIA utilise to justify handing 100% of this specific diamond allocation to just three companies? How does this heavy consolidation align with NAMDIA’s mandate to diversify its local client base and support a wider array of domestic cutting and polishing factories?
BC: NAMDIA continues to operate without a dedicated financing facility. Consequently, it has had to rely on clients to pre-finance diamond purchases, thereby enabling NAMDIA to fulfil its purchasing and sales obligations without access to conventional bank financing. The opportunity to provide such financing was extended to all eligible clients, and the successful participants were selected on the basis of the most competitive and commercially advantageous offers received.
The current three-client arrangement is therefore the outcome of this process, rather than an arbitrary decision to exclude other participants. Securing a sustainable financing facility remains important to reducing this constraint and broadening NAMDIA’s commercial options.
Fourthly, NAMDIA has not yet returned to its own premises and continues to operate from accommodated facilities. This limits the number of clients that can be engaged at any given time and constrains NAMDIA’s capacity to conduct its sales activities at the scale and frequency that would otherwise be possible. The current arrangements must therefore be understood in the context of these operational limitations and should not be interpreted as a deliberate departure from the objective of maintaining a diversified client base.
Finally, while NAMDIA supports the Government’s beneficiation objectives and recognises the importance of developing Namibia’s local cutting and polishing industry, its primary commercial mandate remains price discovery.
This requires NAMDIA to secure the best possible commercial value for Namibian diamonds through a transparent and competitive sales process. Client participation and allocation decisions must therefore be guided by commercial competitiveness, the ability to execute transactions and the prevailing market environment, while remaining consistent with NAMDIA’s broader contribution to the development of the domestic diamond industry.
NAMDIA remains committed to broadening client participation and supporting local beneficiation as financing, infrastructure and market conditions improve. The current three-client arrangement reflects the practical and commercial realities under which NAMDIA is operating and should be assessed within that context.
NBR: What specific institutional rules, governance frameworks or corporate board policies does NAMDIA follow when extending a standard buyer’s contract outside of normal cycle reviews? Furthermore, given severe concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest involving senior executives whose close relatives may be linked to the direct beneficiaries of these extensions, what internal measures or independent audits have been launched to ensure that these contract extensions were negotiated strictly at arm’s length?
BC: The temporary extension of the buyers’ contracts was undertaken in accordance with NAMDIA’s applicable internal governance and approval processes. Regarding the allegations of potential conflicts of interest involving senior executives and their relatives, NAMDIA has already addressed this matter comprehensively in its response dated 28 September 2026. Our position on this matter remains unchanged, and we refer you to that response for the relevant clarification. NAMDIA remains committed to upholding sound corporate governance, transparency, accountability and the consistent application of its internal policies and procedures in all its commercial dealings.
NBR: Is the NAMDIA Board and management aware of allegations that senior managers who were central to the decision-making process for the 2026–2029 buyer selection had close personal or familial ties to the benefiting companies? Our initial investigations show that some of the companies that were selected as buyers might have close links to the top managers at NAMDIA.
BC: NAMDIA is aware of the allegations raised in your enquiry. However, NAMDIA is not aware of any familial relationships between members of its senior management and the approved clients that would constitute a conflict of interest in the selection process. As would be expected in a specialised industry, professional relationships may exist between NAMDIA representatives and industry participants, particularly clients who have previously conducted business with the company. The existence of a professional relationship does not constitute a conflict of interest.
NBR: Can you put it on record that all senior managers, including the CEO, declared any conflict of interest to any bidders before the selection of buyers was done?
BC: Yes. Declarations of interest formed part of the governance requirements applicable to the client selection process, and the relevant declarations were duly made. It is also important to note that a Client Selection Committee was formally constituted to review and select the clients in accordance with the applicable governance requirements. The Acting CEO was not a member of the Client Selection Committee and therefore did not participate in the Committee’s deliberations or selection decisions.
NBR: Could you also clarify concerns among diamond players that the selection of some of the companies, which are mere middlemen, might compromise the potential earnings that NAMDIA will accrue from certain selected buyers? Please also give details on whether NAMDIA has the capacity to flag companies that act as middlemen and, in instances where such activity is flagged, what the process of remedy is.
BC: NAMDIA’s earnings are determined by the value realised from the sale of its diamonds to its clients and not by the subsequent commercial activities of those clients.
NAMDIA’s client portfolio comprises different business models, including vertically integrated companies as well as companies operating primarily within the trading segment of the diamond value chain. These differences do not, in themselves, determine the value NAMDIA achieves from a sale.
NAMDIA’s focus is therefore on the commercial capability of its clients and their ability to support the company’s mandate of effective price discovery and maximising value from its diamond allocation. Once a legitimate sale has been concluded, the subsequent commercial disposition of those diamonds falls within the business operations of the respective client, subject to applicable laws and regulatory requirements.
NBR: What specific steps is NAMDIA’s governance or risk committee currently taking to investigate these specific allegations of nepotism and conflict of interest within senior management?
BC: NAMDIA is not aware of any familial relationship between its senior management and the approved clients that would substantiate an allegation of nepotism in the client selection process.
As previously communicated, the completed selection process was subjected to an independent internal audit review, which confirmed that the process was undertaken in accordance with the approved client selection criteria and procedures.
Should specific and credible information indicating misconduct or an undeclared conflict of interest be presented to NAMDIA, it would be considered through the appropriate governance structures.
NBR: Given that NAMDIA previously stated an independent internal audit reviewed the selection, will NAMDIA consider commissioning an external, forensic investigation to look specifically into these undisclosed links?
BC: NAMDIA would consider any credible information or evidence presented regarding an alleged undisclosed conflict of interest and determine the appropriate course of action through its established governance structures. At present, the client selection process has already been subjected to an independent internal audit review, which confirmed compliance with the approved selection criteria and procedures. Any decision to commission an additional investigation would therefore need to be informed by specific information or evidence warranting such a process.
NBR: Given NAMDIA’s foundational mandate of “price discovery” for the benefit of the Namibian state, how can the public maintain confidence in the integrity of the current sales cycle amidst lingering allegations of insider favour trading?
BC: Public confidence should ultimately be supported by NAMDIA’s ability to deliver on its mandate and demonstrate value from Namibia’s diamond resources. NAMDIA’s responsibility is to secure the best possible commercial outcomes from its diamond allocation. This requires maintaining a client portfolio capable of competing for NAMDIA’s diamonds and supporting effective price discovery, irrespective of whether those clients are Namibian or international.
The current sales cycle will therefore be measured by the value NAMDIA is able to realise from its diamonds and the contribution this makes towards delivering value for Namibia.
NAMDIA remains accountable for the way it conducts its business and will continue to address any credible concerns through the appropriate governance channels.
NBR: With 75 global applicants and only five local firms selected, how does NAMDIA ensure that the selection process was not structurally or behaviourally skewed by conflicted managers to disadvantage qualified Namibian diamond dealers?
BC: The nationality of an applicant was not the sole determinant of appointment. All applicants were assessed against predetermined and weighted criteria, and all applicants who achieved the prescribed qualifying threshold and were deemed commercially suitable were included in the final client list. Importantly, NAMDIA’s Client Registration Policy specifically provides an advantage for local beneficiation, while maintaining the commercial requirements applicable to the selection process.
Five Namibian companies were appointed from eleven local applicants, compared to two Namibian clients in the previous sales cycle. NAMDIA must balance its support of local beneficiation with its commercial mandate of achieving effective price discovery and maximising value from Namibia’s limited diamond allocation.
The independent internal audit review subsequently confirmed that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the approved criteria and procedures.
COMMENTS