EDITORIAL
The Namibian government’s decision to establish a new national carrier, Namibia Air, has reignited a debate the country can hardly afford to get wrong.
The project comes just five years after the painful liquidation of Air Namibia, a carrier that received more than N$8 billion in taxpayer support over the years. With the government targeting operations by late 2026 to strengthen Namibia’s regional and international connectivity, the stakes could hardly be higher.
Namibia Air has an opportunity to learn from the failures of its predecessor. But if the new airline is to fly further than Air Namibia did, the government must internalise one fundamental lesson: commercial viability depends on public confidence, and public confidence depends on transparency.
Transparency cannot be treated as a bureaucratic box to be ticked after decisions have already been made. It must be part of the airline’s foundation.
The government therefore needs to be open about how Namibia Air is being designed, financed and structured, from aircraft procurement and ownership arrangements to its business model and governance framework.
Recent official notices point to an initial plan to acquire seven aircraft at an estimated cost of nearly N$600 million. For a country facing significant socioeconomic pressures, any injection of public money into a state-led commercial venture must be backed by a clear and credible business case.
Citizens deserve to know what they are paying for, why the investment is necessary, what returns are expected and what safeguards are in place if the airline fails to meet its projections. Every major stage of the capital deployment should be subject to scrutiny. This is not about undermining the airline. It is about giving the project the credibility it needs to succeed.
The same openness must apply to potential strategic partners.
Reports linking the project to possible equity or management partnerships with regional aviation giants such as Ethiopian Airlines have understandably raised questions about ownership, control and national interests. The Ministry of Works and Transport should therefore provide clarity on the nature of these discussions.
What would the proposed shareholder structure look like? Who would control the airline? What expertise would strategic partners contribute? What operational, technical and technological capabilities would be transferred to Namibian professionals?
These are legitimate questions, not attempts to derail the project.
If international partners are being considered because they can provide expertise, networks, technology and operational experience that Namibia currently lacks, the government should explain this openly. Doing so would demonstrate that partnerships are being pursued on clear commercial terms and in the national interest.
Governance will be just as important as capital.
Namibia Air must be led by people with the technical expertise, commercial experience and independence required to run a complex airline. The appointment of executives and board members should therefore be based on competence and proven track records, rather than political connections.
Air Namibia’s collapse offers painful lessons about the consequences of weak governance, political interference and poor commercial decision-making. Namibia cannot afford to reproduce those conditions under a different name.
The selection process for the new airline’s leadership should be transparent, merit-based and insulated as far as possible from political patronage. A credible board and professional management team would not only strengthen internal decision-making, but also send an important signal to lenders, investors, business partners and passengers.
Yet, perhaps most concerning is the government’s apparent reluctance to communicate openly about the project.
Keeping important information behind closed doors, allowing officials to respond only when documents are leaked, or dismissing reports based on leaked strategy documents as irresponsible journalism does little to build confidence. It creates an information vacuum, and information vacuums are quickly filled by speculation.
The government should instead make regular communication part of the Namibia Air project.
The media should have access to credible information about the airline’s progress, including its feasibility assessments, financing model, fleet plans, partnerships and governance arrangements, within legitimate commercial and legal limits.
The press is not an adversary to be engaged only when a final deal has been signed. It is one of the mechanisms through which the public holds the government accountable.
Tough questions are not necessarily a threat to Namibia Air. They can expose weaknesses before those weaknesses become expensive failures. They can also test the government’s assumptions and force greater clarity around decisions involving public resources.
Regular press briefings, accessible information and straightforward answers would therefore serve the government as much as they serve the public. A government that is confident in the commercial case for Namibia Air should have little to fear from scrutiny.
The launch of Namibia Air could strengthen Namibia’s tourism, trade and international connectivity. But it could also become another costly reminder of what happens when political ambition runs ahead of commercial discipline.
The difference will be determined by governance.
If the government wants Namibians to believe that Namibia Air is different, it must demonstrate that difference from the beginning: through transparent procurement, clear partnership arrangements, credible leadership, sound financial planning and openness to independent scrutiny.
The first test of Namibia Air will not be whether its planes leave the runway. It will be whether Namibians can trust the people making the decisions before they do.
COMMENTS