There is something deeply seductive about the idea of a national airline.
It is the flag in the sky. It is Namibia announcing itself to the world. It is a symbol of independence, ambition and national pride.
But an airline is also a business.
And businesses do not survive on patriotism alone.
The revelations surrounding Namibia Air’s discussions with Ethiopian Airlines therefore deserve a debate that is considerably more sophisticated than the predictable argument over whether Namibia is surrendering its sovereignty to foreigners.
Namibia is a sovereign country. Nobody should dispute that. Namibians must ultimately determine the strategic direction of Namibia Air, and any partnership involving substantial foreign control must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
But sovereignty does not mean knowing everything.
Nor does it mean refusing assistance from people who know more than we do.
This is perhaps the most important lesson emerging from the discussions between Namibia and Ethiopian Airlines.
Ethiopian Airlines has built arguably the strongest aviation operation on the African continent. Its experience extends across aircraft procurement, fleet management, maintenance, training, route planning, technology, financing and international airline operations.
If Namibia is serious about establishing a commercially sustainable airline, it would be extraordinary to deliberately ignore that expertise simply because it is Ethiopian.
The question is therefore not whether Ethiopian Airlines should be allowed to help Namibia.
It should.
The question is under what terms.
According to the briefing report on the August 21 and 22 engagements in Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Airlines has proposed technical assistance, aircraft sourcing, maintenance, training and support with certification and operational systems. It has also indicated that it could deploy personnel to assist with refining Namibia Air’s business plan.
These are precisely the kinds of capabilities Namibia should seek.
There is no shame in acknowledging that we have gaps.
Namibia has talented pilots, engineers, aviation managers, accountants, lawyers and former Air Namibia executives. Their experience should be indispensable to the establishment of Namibia Air.
But having qualified individuals is not necessarily the same thing as possessing the institutional depth and international commercial experience required to establish a successful airline from scratch.
We need to be honest about that.
The collapse of Air Namibia should have taught us that national ownership alone does not guarantee national success.
For years, Air Namibia was treated not merely as an airline but as an instrument of national pride. Yet pride could not overcome structural weaknesses, political interference, financial losses and the enormous costs associated with operating an airline.
Namibia Air must not become Air Namibia 2.0.
That is why Ethiopian Airlines’ reported insistence that any equity partnership would require management control should neither be accepted unquestioningly nor rejected reflexively.
Management control is a serious concession.
If a foreign partner is to control the CEO, CFO and maintenance functions, the government must be able to demonstrate exactly what Namibia receives in exchange. What capital is being invested? What risks will the foreign partner assume? What knowledge will be transferred? How many Namibians will be trained? What are the performance obligations? And, critically, when and how does management control transition to Namibians?
A partnership without a clear exit or succession strategy could easily become dependency.
But a partnership designed to transfer knowledge and build local capacity could be precisely what Namibia needs.
This is where the government must demonstrate negotiating competence.
It should not negotiate from a position of insecurity, desperately trying to preserve the appearance of complete control. Neither should it negotiate from desperation, accepting whatever terms are placed on the table simply to ensure that an airline launches in December 2026.
The launch date must not become a political deadline.
If Namibia Air is not ready, it should not fly simply because government promised that it would.
An airline launched prematurely can burn through hundreds of millions of dollars while politicians celebrate the inaugural flight. The taxpayer is then left to finance the consequences.
That would not be sovereignty. It would be expensive symbolism.
The same rational approach must apply to the disagreement over routes.
Ethiopian Airlines reportedly recommended removing Windhoek-Johannesburg, Windhoek-Cape Town and Windhoek-Luanda from the initial network. Namibia apparently believes these routes are important to the business plan.
Both positions may have merit.
Johannesburg and Cape Town are obvious regional connections, while Luanda has strategic economic potential. But strategic importance and commercial viability are not necessarily the same thing.
The government must publish the evidence.
If Namibia’s approximately N$20 million feasibility study concluded that these routes are commercially sustainable, the government should explain why Ethiopian’s analysis differs.
If the Ethiopian assessment is stronger, Namibia should have the courage to change course.
A feasibility study is not a religious document. It is supposed to help decision-makers make better decisions.
But taxpayers also deserve to know what they paid for.
The government should therefore release the relevant findings of the feasibility study, explain the assumptions underpinning it and clarify why Ethiopian Airlines’ counter-proposal may differ.
There is another issue that deserves attention: Namibia’s aviation professionals.
The call for their involvement should be supported.
Former Air Namibia employees possess institutional memory that cannot simply be purchased from a foreign consultant. They understand Namibia’s market, passengers, regulatory environment and operational realities.
But involving Namibians does not mean putting every Namibian in a senior position regardless of competence.
That would merely replace one form of bad decision-making with another.
Appointments must be based on competence, experience and performance.
If the best person for a particular technical function is Ethiopian, let that person do the job.
If the best person is Namibian, let the Namibian do it.
And if a foreign expert is appointed because Namibia currently lacks the required expertise, that appointment should come with an explicit obligation to train and develop Namibians to eventually take over.
That is how nations build capacity.
We should stop treating the admission of a skills gap as a national humiliation.
No serious country operates that way.
Namibia itself has benefited enormously from foreign expertise in mining, construction, banking, telecommunications, engineering and other sectors. International companies and professionals have contributed skills and knowledge while Namibians have built their own capabilities.
There is no reason aviation should be different.
The ultimate ambition should not be to create an airline that is nominally 100 percent Namibian but permanently dependent on taxpayers.
Nor should we create an airline carrying a Namibian flag while strategic decisions are effectively made elsewhere.
We should build something better.
A commercially disciplined Namibian airline that uses the best expertise available, whether local or international; that develops Namibian professionals; that operates transparently; that is subjected to proper corporate governance; and that can eventually stand confidently on its own.
That is real sovereignty.
Sovereignty is not demonstrated by refusing help.
It is demonstrated by being confident enough to accept help, smart enough to negotiate the right terms, disciplined enough to learn, and ambitious enough to build the capacity to do it ourselves.
Namibia Air should therefore not be asked to prove its patriotism by flying alone.
It should be required to prove its competence by becoming sustainable.
The flag can come later.
The first priority is making sure the aircraft stays in the air.
