Soini Nampala
The Anti-Corruption Commission’s slogan, “Be Part of the Fight,” represents more than a call to report corruption. It is a national invitation for every Namibian to participate in the protection of the country’s resources, institutions and democratic governance.
The fight against corruption, however, cannot be fully effective if it begins only after individuals have entered public office and obtained access to public resources.
If corruption is capable of influencing the process through which individuals attain political power in the first place, then the fight against corruption must also consider that earlier stage.
The Anti-Corruption Act provides an important statutory framework for preventing, investigating and combating corrupt practices.
However, there is a need for Parliament to examine whether the existing framework sufficiently addresses corruption risks within political parties and political processes that precede the assumption of public office.
My proposition is therefore not that political parties should lose their legitimate autonomy. Rather, it is that political-party autonomy should be accompanied by appropriate accountability where conduct within political parties crosses the line into defined corrupt practices.
Corruption is often viewed from the point at which public resources are misappropriated, public contracts are manipulated or public officials abuse their positions. That is the end-product stage of corruption. I believe Namibia must also examine the stages that can precede it.
Every government begins with a political process. Political parties participate in elections, select and promote candidates, develop leadership structures and ultimately contribute to the formation of government through the democratic process.
This gives rise to an important question: What happens when corrupt practices enter the political process before individuals assume public office?
If political positions can allegedly be obtained through bribery, gratification, vote-buying, financial inducements, manipulation or other corrupt practices, then the consequences may extend beyond the political party itself.
Individuals who obtain positions through corrupt means may eventually acquire access to public authority and, potentially, public resources.
This is why the fight against corruption should not only focus on the fruit of the tree. It should also examine the roots.
Political parties occupy an important position in Namibia’s democratic system. They provide platforms through which citizens organise politically, participate in elections and seek representation.
Using the analogy of a tree, political parties can be viewed as part of the roots of the political system, government as the tree, and political leaders as the fruit produced through that system. The quality of the fruit is influenced by the condition of the roots.
This analogy raises an important governance principle: If corruption is allowed to take root within political processes, it may eventually manifest itself within the institutions of government.
For this reason, the fight against corruption should not begin only when a person becomes a public officer. Preventive anti-corruption measures should also consider whether corrupt practices are influencing the acquisition of political power and leadership positions.
The current Anti-Corruption Act provides a framework directed substantially toward corruption involving public officers, public bodies and the exercise of public functions.
It also contains offences addressing conduct such as corruptly giving or accepting gratification, bribery of public officers, corrupt use of office or position for gratification, and dealing with gratification connected to corrupt offences.
The policy question that Parliament should therefore consider is whether appropriately defined provisions should also apply to corrupt conduct occurring within political parties and political processes where such conduct has a direct connection to the acquisition or exercise of political power.
This would not mean criminalising ordinary political competition, political disagreements, legitimate campaigning or internal party administration.
Instead, Parliament could consider clearly defined offences dealing specifically with conduct such as offering or accepting gratification in exchange for political-party votes, bribing delegates in internal political-party elections, buying or selling votes for political positions, corruptly influencing the selection or election of political candidates, corruptly using a political position for personal gratification, misappropriating or fraudulently dealing with political-party funds, concealing or receiving benefits arising from defined corrupt practices, and other conduct that Parliament may determine constitutes corruption within political processes.
Such provisions would need clear definitions, appropriate thresholds and strong procedural safeguards to ensure that legitimate political activity is not improperly criminalised.
The issue is ultimately larger than political parties themselves. When individuals enter public leadership, they may acquire authority over public institutions, public policy and public resources.
Namibia continues to face significant socioeconomic pressures, including unemployment, the high cost of living, housing and land challenges, and the need to strengthen support for vulnerable members of society.
Every public resource lost through corruption represents more than a financial figure. It represents a potential opportunity lost for national development and for improving the lives of ordinary Namibians.
Public money that is unlawfully diverted cannot simultaneously be used to improve public services, develop infrastructure, support social programmes or address other national priorities.
The fight against corruption is therefore also a fight for economic justice, accountable governance and the protection of the public interest.
Namibia should aspire to an anti-corruption framework that is both reactive and preventive.
Reactive enforcement asks: Who misappropriated public resources, and how should that conduct be investigated and punished?
Preventive enforcement asks an additional question: What corrupt practices allowed the individual or network involved to acquire influence or access to public power in the first place?
Both questions are important. If corruption is addressed only after public resources have been lost, the State may be dealing with the consequences rather than the source of the problem.
A stronger framework would seek to identify and address corruption risks throughout the chain: political process, leadership selection, acquisition of public office, exercise of public authority, and management of public resources.
The objective should be to protect the public interest at every stage.
Political parties have legitimate rights to organise themselves, develop their structures and conduct their internal affairs. However, autonomy should not become a shield for conduct that Parliament has determined to be corrupt.
The principle should therefore be: Where legitimate political-party autonomy ends and defined corrupt conduct begins, accountability must apply.
This does not require the State to control political parties or interfere with legitimate political activity. Rather, it requires a clear legal framework capable of addressing conduct that undermines democratic integrity and creates corruption risks.
An uncaptured democracy requires both political freedom and institutional accountability.
The Anti-Corruption Commission cannot effectively fight every form of corruption if the legislative framework does not give it the necessary jurisdiction and powers.
Parliament therefore has an important role to play in continuously reviewing whether Namibia’s anti-corruption laws remain adequate to the realities of corruption.
The question before Parliament should not simply be: “How do we punish corruption after it occurs?”
It should also be: “How do we prevent corrupt practices from taking root before they reach the institutions entrusted with public power?”
This is where legislative reform deserves serious consideration.
Parliament could undertake a comprehensive review of the Anti-Corruption Act and related legislation to determine whether additional provisions are required to address corruption risks within political parties and political processes, while protecting constitutional rights, democratic participation and legitimate political activity.
As one who is deeply concerned about the struggles of ordinary Namibians and the protection of the country’s resources, I call upon Parliament to consider a comprehensive review of Namibia’s anti-corruption legislative framework.
I call upon Parliament to examine whether the existing Anti-Corruption Act reaches sufficiently deep into the processes through which political power is acquired and exercised.
I call upon Parliament to consider appropriate legislative provisions addressing defined corrupt practices within political parties and political processes, particularly where such practices involve gratification, bribery, vote-buying, corrupt influence, misuse of position or other conduct that threatens the integrity of democratic governance.
The objective should not be to weaken political parties. The objective should be to strengthen the integrity of the democratic system upon which the government itself is built.
The fight against corruption cannot be left to the Anti-Corruption Commission alone. It requires Parliament to provide an effective legal framework. It requires political parties to uphold integrity within their own structures.
It requires public officers to exercise authority responsibly. It requires citizens to reject corruption rather than participate in it, and it requires every Namibian who witnesses corruption to recognise that silence can allow corruption to grow.
The Anti-Corruption Commission says, “Be Part of the Fight.” I believe Namibia must take that call seriously.
But if we are truly going to fight corruption, we must be prepared to examine where corruption begins, not only where its consequences become visible.
We must protect the roots before the tree is damaged. We must protect the tree before the fruit is corrupted. And we must protect the nation’s resources before they are lost.
Where legitimate political-party autonomy ends, accountability for defined corrupt conduct must begin. Where corruption threatens democratic integrity, the law must have the reach to respond.
My call to Parliament is therefore simple: Review. Reform. Strengthen.
Strengthen Namibia’s anti-corruption framework so that the fight against corruption reaches from the political roots to the institutions of government, for an accountable democracy, for protected public resources, for responsible leadership, and for the people of Namibia.
