The dispute over the future of Divundu Village Council chief executive officer Athanasius Ndjamba Maghumbo is becoming more than a disagreement over one employment contract. It is increasingly a test of something far more important: whether Namibia’s local authorities are prepared to place the law, accountability and institutional integrity above personalities and political loyalties.
Urban and Rural Development Minister James Sankwasa has rejected the Divundu Village Council’s appeal to renew Maghumbo’s five-year contract. His position is unequivocal: the contract will not be renewed.
Yet the controversy surrounding the decision deserves careful consideration. There are legitimate questions on both sides, and neither the minister nor the council should be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because one holds executive authority and the other represents a local community.
At the centre of the dispute are concerns raised by the minister about Maghumbo’s performance, financial management and compliance with statutory reporting requirements. Sankwasa has pointed to alleged failures involving budgets, audit reports and financial statements, concluding that the CEO’s overall performance did not meet the required standards.
These are not trivial administrative matters.
A chief executive officer of a local authority occupies a position of considerable responsibility. Local authorities manage public resources, implement council resolutions and provide essential services to communities. Proper financial reporting and compliance with legislation are therefore not bureaucratic inconveniences. They are fundamental requirements of accountable government.
Public money must be accounted for. Decisions must be properly documented. Audits must be undertaken. Budgets must be prepared and submitted as required. Where these obligations are not met, there must be consequences.
But the council has offered a counterargument that should not simply be dismissed.
Divundu councillors contend that some of the deficiencies identified by the ministry are institutional rather than personal. They point to vacancies in finance and accounting positions, shortages of qualified personnel, limited technical capacity, delays in external audits and inadequate administrative resources.
That argument deserves to be tested on its merits.
It would be unfair to hold one individual responsible for every failure within an institution if the institution itself has been chronically under-resourced or improperly staffed. A CEO cannot manufacture qualified accountants where there are vacancies, nor can a local authority complete external audits faster than the processes of the institutions responsible for conducting them.
At the same time, institutional constraints cannot become a permanent shield against individual accountability.
The appropriate question is therefore not simply whether Divundu has capacity problems. It is whether those problems genuinely explain the shortcomings identified by the minister, and what responsibility, if any, rests with the CEO and the council itself.
That determination must be made through evidence, proper procedures and the applicable law — not through political pressure, public sentiment or competing narratives.
This is where the latest allegations become particularly troubling.
An activist has alleged that Maghumbo personally drafted the council’s appeal against the minister’s decision and presented it to councillors for their signatures. These remain allegations. Maghumbo has not responded to the Windhoek Observer’s questions at the time of publication, and the councillor contacted by this newspaper declined to comment.
Consequently, the allegation should not be treated as established fact.
But if it is true, it raises a serious conflict-of-interest question.
A public official whose employment is directly at stake should not be placed in a position where he effectively authors the institutional response intended to protect his own position. Even where there is no unlawful conduct, the appearance of self-interest can damage public confidence.
The same principle applies to councillors.
Their responsibility is to the institution and the residents they represent, not to an individual office-bearer. If councillors believe the minister’s decision is wrong, they have every right — subject to the law — to challenge it. But they must be able to demonstrate that their position is independently considered, properly motivated and based on the interests of the council and its residents.
This is ultimately not about whether Maghumbo is liked or disliked. Nor should it become a contest between Divundu and the minister.
It is about whether the procedures governing public administration are being followed.
The council makes an important point when it argues that there has been no formal finding of misconduct, dishonesty, gross negligence or dereliction of duty against Maghumbo. That distinction matters. Poor institutional performance is not automatically proof of misconduct, and allegations must not be transformed into convictions by administrative fiat.
Equally, however, the absence of a disciplinary finding does not necessarily mean that a contract must be renewed. Contract renewal and disciplinary proceedings are distinct questions, governed by their respective legal and administrative frameworks.
The minister must therefore be able to demonstrate that his decision falls within his lawful powers and that it was reached through a fair, rational and procedurally sound process.
If it does, the decision must stand.
If it does not, the appropriate remedy is not political lobbying but lawful review and appeal.
The council’s argument about institutional stability also deserves consideration. Maghumbo has accumulated knowledge of Divundu’s operations and ongoing projects. Removing an experienced official can create disruption.
But institutional continuity cannot depend on the indefinite tenure of one individual. Strong institutions are those that survive changes in personnel because systems, records, procedures and accountability mechanisms are functioning properly.
Namibia has spent decades building democratic institutions. Those institutions are weakened whenever rules are selectively applied to accommodate individuals — regardless of whether those individuals are politically connected, popular within their communities or considered indispensable.
The same standard must apply to ministers.
Ministerial authority is not absolute. It must be exercised within the law, transparently and with reasons that can withstand scrutiny. A minister cannot simply declare that a contract will not be renewed and expect the matter to end there if the law provides affected parties with avenues of appeal or review.
Nor should councillors assume that a political appeal can overturn a lawful administrative decision simply because they disagree with it.
There is a straightforward principle that should guide everyone involved: the law must come before loyalty.
If Maghumbo has been unfairly treated, the law should provide him with protection. If the council’s appeal is justified, it should succeed through the proper process. If the minister acted lawfully and reasonably, his decision should be respected.
Divundu does not need another political confrontation. It needs clarity.
The residents of the village deserve a council that manages public resources responsibly, a CEO who is properly accountable, councillors who exercise independent judgment and a minister who exercises his powers lawfully.
Whatever the outcome, it should be determined not by who is more influential, who can mobilise more supporters or who has the loudest voice.
It should be determined by the law.
That is the only standard capable of protecting both public institutions and the people they serve.
