The controversy surrounding the departure of Chief Regional Officer Kamseb, reportedly following the intervention of Minister of Urban and Rural Development James Sankwasa, has reignited an uncomfortable but necessary national conversation. It is a conversation that extends far beyond one official, one minister or one regional council.
It is about whether Namibia’s decentralisation framework has matured into an effective system of governance or whether it remains a structure in which lines of authority are too easily blurred.
This newspaper is not concerned with personalities. Ministers will come and go. Chief Regional Officers will be appointed and replaced. Political leadership will change. What should endure are institutions that function according to clearly defined laws, transparent procedures and sound governance principles.
The events surrounding Kamseb should therefore not be viewed in isolation. They expose a recurring challenge that has surfaced repeatedly throughout Namibia’s post-Independence history, a persistent uncertainty over where ministerial oversight ends and where the authority of regional councils and their professional administrators begins.
The Regional Councils Act establishes regional councils as elected institutions entrusted with promoting development and delivering services closer to the people. They are meant to identify local priorities and make decisions that reflect the needs of their communities.
Chief Regional Officers, on the other hand, serve as the accounting officers and administrative heads of these councils. Their responsibility is not to play politics but to implement lawful decisions, manage public finances responsibly and ensure the day-to-day functioning of regional administrations.
Above these institutions sits the Minister of Urban and Rural Development, who exercises oversight on behalf of central government. That oversight is neither unusual nor inappropriate. Regional councils administer public funds, execute national programmes and remain creatures of statute. Oversight is therefore essential.
Yet oversight must never become synonymous with control.
This distinction lies at the heart of the present debate.
If the public begins to perceive that senior administrative appointments and removals depend more on ministerial preference than on transparent institutional processes, confidence in regional governance inevitably suffers. Even where a minister acts within the confines of the law, public trust depends not only on legality but also on the appearance of fairness, independence and procedural integrity.
Minister Sankwasa’s reported involvement has therefore raised legitimate questions, not necessarily about whether he possessed legal authority to intervene, but about whether Namibia’s governance framework sufficiently protects the independence of professional public administration.
These are questions that deserve answers.
Ironically, they also expose the unfinished nature of Namibia’s decentralisation agenda.
Successive governments have consistently affirmed their commitment to decentralisation. The principle itself is sound. Decisions affecting local communities are often best made closer to those communities. Regional councils understand local challenges better than distant offices in Windhoek. Decentralisation promises responsiveness, accountability and improved service delivery.
Unfortunately, the practical reality has often fallen short of the vision.
Many regional councils continue to rely heavily on central government for financial resources, staffing approvals and major administrative decisions. Councils carry significant responsibilities but frequently lack the authority to exercise those responsibilities independently. The result is a governance model in which accountability is shared while authority remains divided.
This creates fertile ground for conflict.
When projects fail, who should answer to the public? The minister? The regional council? The Chief Regional Officer?
Too often, the answer depends on whom one asks.
That uncertainty serves no one.
Councillors may find themselves unable to implement priorities because approval rests elsewhere. Chief Regional Officers may be caught between executing council resolutions and responding to ministerial directives. Ministers, meanwhile, remain accountable for ensuring that public resources are managed lawfully and efficiently.
Each institution possesses legitimate responsibilities.
The difficulty is that the boundaries between them are not always sufficiently clear.
Other democracies operating decentralised systems have sought to resolve this tension by strengthening institutional safeguards. Ministers retain policy oversight and intervene where governance failures occur, while professional administrators enjoy protection through transparent appointment, evaluation and disciplinary processes that minimise perceptions of political interference.
Namibia need not copy another country’s model wholesale. But it should not ignore lessons that promote stability, accountability and public confidence.
Professional public administration is one of the cornerstones of democratic governance. Chief Regional Officers should neither become political actors nor political casualties. Their role demands impartiality, competence and adherence to the law, regardless of which political party governs nationally or regionally.
Equally, ministers cannot be expected to stand idle where there are allegations of maladministration, financial irregularities or governance failures. Oversight remains both necessary and lawful.
The challenge is ensuring that interventions occur within transparent, predictable and clearly understood institutional frameworks.
This is why the present controversy should become more than tomorrow’s headline.
Parliament should take the opportunity to review the Regional Councils Act alongside Namibia’s broader decentralisation framework. More than three decades after regional councils were established, the country has accumulated sufficient experience to identify where legislative ambiguities exist and where institutional relationships require refinement.
Such a review should not seek to weaken ministerial oversight, nor should it create regional administrations that operate without accountability. Rather, it should define more precisely the respective powers of ministers, regional councils and Chief Regional Officers, thereby reducing the recurring disputes that have characterised regional governance over the years.
Good governance depends on certainty.
Citizens deserve to know who is responsible when services fail. Regional councillors deserve clarity about the scope of their authority. Chief Regional Officers deserve confidence that professional decisions will be judged according to law rather than politics. Ministers deserve legal frameworks that clearly define both their powers and their limitations.
Ultimately, institutions matter more than individuals.
The discussion sparked by Minister Sankwasa and the departure of Kamseb should therefore not descend into partisan point-scoring. It should become the catalyst for strengthening one of the most important pillars of Namibia’s democratic system.
Decentralisation cannot succeed if authority remains uncertain, accountability becomes diluted and institutional relationships are continually contested.
Namibia has reached the point where the rules governing regional administration require fresh examination. Strong institutions are built not by concentrating power, but by clearly defining it.
The time to have that conversation is now.
