“It’s risky to trust future presidents with oil and gas sector” – analysts
OWN CORRESPONDENT
President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s decision to put Namibia’s oil and gas sector under her direct control is facing criticism, with analysts warning that the bigger risk may come after she leaves office, when the same strong powers will be passed to future presidents.
A cross-section of Namibian society has raised alarm over this move, noting that the upstream oil sector is still in its formative stages. Nandi-Ndaitwah said last year that placing the sector under the Presidency “will curb corruption and allow the country to learn from the new sector.”
However, analysts told Namibia Business Review this week that concentrating control of a strategic national resource in a single office could weaken institutional oversight and undermine long-term governance safeguards.
POWER GRAB OR REFORM?
Concerns have intensified following the introduction of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill of 2025. The Bill proposes transferring full authority over Namibia’s oil and gas sector from the Ministry of Industries, Mines and Energy to the Office of the President.
“There might be a high degree of trust in the current office bearer, but it creates a structure which will also be inherited by successors. Such a personalised structure erodes and undermines institutional oversight,” said political analyst Henning Melber.
Melber is among those warning that stripping the ministry of the oil and gas portfolio could weaken institutional checks and balances.
Under a conventional ministerial arrangement, the President, Prime Minister and a parliamentary committee would have direct access to information and exercise oversight if there were suspicions of abuse of authority for personal enrichment.
Melber argues these accountability mechanisms would not exist if the sector is placed under the exclusive authority of the Office of the President, as proposed in the Bill currently under debate in the National Assembly.
He also warned that President Nandi-Ndaitwah would be directly exposed should problems arise.
“What if, despite her best intentions to enhance control and reduce corruption, loopholes benefit illegal practices? She would have the sole blame to accept,” Melber said.
“It therefore seems not in her own interest to acquire ultimate decision-making power beyond any further control mechanisms. The current suspicions articulated in the public should be seen as a warning signal.”
Melber suggested the President should instead introduce clear ministerial provisions and laws with Cabinet oversight. He added that, as President, she is already entitled to receive detailed internal audits and reports to ensure best practices.
“Believing that she has the time and competence to do all of this when the sector is under the responsibility and discretion of the State House seems to be a misjudgment of her competences and capacity,” he said.
“With all the executive powers the President has, governing should also rely on trustworthy and reliable officials operating in accessible and transparent structures subject to regular control. The Bill is, at this moment, a step in the wrong direction and will not strengthen confidence among potential investors.”
He further suggested Namibia should join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), since transparency and accountability are cited as reasons for the new Bill.
HIGH STAKES: COULD THIS BACKFIRE POLITICALLY
Prominent lawyer Richard Metcalfe also weighed in, noting that the President, as head of the Executive Branch, already presides over Cabinet and is constitutionally permitted to assume responsibility for any executive function.
However, he cautioned that the move carries significant political risk.
Metcalfe warned that if corruption, nepotism or institutional failure were to emerge, comparable to the Fishrot scandal, the President could suffer a loss of public and electoral support, similar to former president Hage Geingob.
“It is a gamble by the President because if corruption, nepotism and collapse prevail, a la the Fishrot debacle, she risks loss of electoral support a la Geingob,” Metcalfe said.
Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) shadow international relations and trade minister Rodney Cloete said Mines and Energy Minister Modestus Amutse’s defence of the Bill — by comparing Namibia to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Brunei, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Suriname — is flawed.
He said that the UAE is an absolute monarchy, while Brunei is a sultanate where the monarch simultaneously serves as prime minister, defence minister and finance minister.
Nigeria, he added, is “an even stranger choice,” noting that Nigerian petroleum governance has for decades been associated with corruption, opacity and institutional failure.
“Our entire governance architecture, separation of powers, ministerial accountability to Parliament and independent regulatory oversight, was designed precisely to prevent the concentration of resource decisions in a single office,” Cloete said.
He also criticised the Bill’s disclosure provisions. The proposed law requires the Director-General and Deputy Director-General of the new Upstream Petroleum Unit to disclose their assets and interests to the President.
“This is presented as a safeguard, while it clearly is not,” Cloete said.
“Transparency means disclosure to Parliament and to the public. It means independent verification mechanisms that do not depend on the goodwill of the person who appointed you.”
“Disclosure to the President is accountable to one person, the person who appointed the Director-General, who controls the Unit and who now exercises licensing authority. This is a closed loop.”
Cloete further said that petroleum licensing is fundamentally different from development planning.
“The financial stakes, the corruption risks, the geopolitical implications and the irreversibility of licensing decisions bear no resemblance to planning coordination,” he said.
“Comparing the two is like comparing a neighbourhood watch to a central bank. Both serve useful functions, but they are not interchangeable governance models.”
He added that Fishrot “is not ancient history.”
“The last time Namibia centralised natural resource decisions with inadequate institutional oversight, it produced Fishrot, Africa’s largest corruption scandal.”
Cloete acknowledged that the 1991 Act needs updating, but said modernisation should strengthen oversight, not dismantle it.
“A serious petroleum governance framework would include parliamentary ratification of all major petroleum agreements,” he said.
“It would establish an independent regulatory authority, not housed in any ministry or the Presidency, with its own budget and legal personality. It would mandate proactive publication of all contracts, fiscal terms and production data within 30 days.”
TIMELY
Energy lawyer Shakwa Nyambe offered a contrasting view, describing the proposed amendments as timely and indispensable.
He said the amendments establish a governance framework capable of managing Namibia’s transition from an exploration frontier to a significant petroleum-producing nation, ensuring sustainable benefits for the country and its people.
“The creation of an Upstream Petroleum Unit under the Office of the President, with a clearly defined Director-General and Deputy Director-General, stands at the core of these reforms,” Nyambe said.
He described it as a structural innovation designed to expedite decisions, strengthen oversight and coordinate the petroleum sector at the highest level of government without politicising technical operations.
Nyambe said the National Assembly to consider the Bill without delay, noting that multiple multi-billion-dollar projects are on the horizon.
“A delay in passing this proposed amendment is likely to delay the Final Investment Decision (FID) on the Venus discovery by TotalEnergies and its partners, since oil companies are hesitant to take decisions while there are pending amendments to the laws that apply to them,” Nyambe said.
Presidential spokesperson Jonas Mbambo said that with the Bill actively being debated in Parliament, the Office of the President will not comment on the concerns raised.
“Doing so could create the impression that the Executive is attempting to influence the outcome of a process that properly belongs to the legislative domain,” Mbambo said.
COMMENTS