The increasingly public confrontation between the City of Windhoek and community activists Shaun Gariseb and Michael Amushelelo is about more than a petition.
It is a test of how seriously Windhoek takes the principles of democratic participation, public accountability and the rule of law.
There should be no ambiguity about one fundamental principle: citizens have a right to question those who govern them. They have a right to organise, petition, protest peacefully, demand better services and scrutinise the use of public resources. These are not privileges granted by municipal authorities. They are essential features of a democratic society.
But there is an equally important principle: activism does not place anyone above the law.
The City of Windhoek is also entitled to operate within the law. Municipal councils require procedures. Some administrative deliberations are legitimately confidential. Personnel matters, procurement processes, legal advice and certain council deliberations cannot simply be converted into public spectacles because activists demand access.
The City is therefore not necessarily wrong to say that some of the issues raised in the petition fall within its internal administrative and governance processes.
But that cannot be the end of the conversation.
Nor should “internal administrative matters” become a convenient institutional shield against legitimate public scrutiny.
This is where the City needs to demonstrate maturity.
The municipality exists for the benefit of Windhoek’s residents. Its authority is derived from the law, but its legitimacy is sustained by public confidence. Residents pay rates, taxes and other charges. They depend on the municipality for basic services. They elect councillors to represent them.
When those residents raise questions about land, service delivery, expenditure, procurement or governance, the answer cannot simply be that the matter is “internal”.
The public deserves to know what can legally be disclosed, what cannot be disclosed, why it cannot be disclosed and when a substantive response can reasonably be expected.
That is the difference between legitimate confidentiality and bureaucratic opacity.
The allegations concerning municipal expenditure illustrate the point.
Gariseb has questioned an alleged N$3.3 million expenditure on games outside the country, asking whether such expenditure is morally defensible while residents face homelessness, inadequate services and other hardships.
Whether that figure is accurate, what it was spent on and whether it was properly authorised are matters that should be established through evidence, not political rhetoric.
If the expenditure was lawful and properly budgeted, the City should say so and explain the rationale. If it was misunderstood, correct the record. If there are legitimate concerns about the expenditure, investigate them.
There is nothing anti-government about asking these questions.
Equally, there is nothing responsible about presenting allegations as proven facts before they have been independently established.
This newspaper therefore rejects two equally dangerous tendencies: the tendency of public institutions to hide behind procedure, and the tendency of activists to substitute accusation for evidence.
Both undermine public trust.
The same applies to allegations concerning procurement and possible corruption. These are serious claims with potentially serious consequences for individuals and institutions. They should not be casually made, nor should they be casually dismissed.
Where credible allegations exist, the appropriate response is investigation through the relevant lawful mechanisms.
The activists are also right to insist that legality and morality are not always identical. A decision can comply with a procedure and still raise legitimate questions about priorities, value for money or public interest.
Good governance requires more than asking, “Was this legal?”
It should also ask: “Was this wise? Was it necessary? Was it prudent? Was it in the public interest? Can we explain it to the people who paid for it?”
But activists must apply the same standard to themselves.
The suggestion of a payment boycott should not be treated lightly. Municipalities require revenue to provide services. Rates and other payments are not simply voluntary contributions to City Hall. Deliberately withholding legally due payments could ultimately undermine the very services residents want improved.
There is a legitimate place for protest and civil resistance in a democracy, but there is also a responsibility to ensure that mobilisation remains lawful and peaceful.
No activist, however popular or well-intentioned, has the right to intimidate officials, obstruct essential services, damage property, unlawfully occupy municipal facilities or otherwise place themselves beyond the law.
The rule of law cannot be selective.
It applies to government.
It applies to councillors.
It applies to officials.
And it applies to activists.
This is why the City should resist the temptation to treat Gariseb and Amushelelo simply as irritants who can be managed through formal letters.
The City fathers should understand that community activism is not going away.
Nor should it.
A healthy democracy needs citizens who are prepared to challenge authority. It needs people willing to ask uncomfortable questions. It needs civil society organisations, ratepayers’ associations, journalists, activists and ordinary residents willing to demand better from those entrusted with public resources.
The City’s objective should therefore not be to wish activists away, but to ensure that activism takes place within a constructive democratic framework.
The sooner the municipality establishes meaningful channels for engagement, the better.
If activists have legitimate grievances, address them.
If their allegations are wrong, demonstrate why.
If their demands cannot legally be accommodated, explain the legal obstacle.
If the issues require another institution’s intervention, refer them appropriately.
And where the City itself has failed, have the institutional courage to admit it.
That is leadership.
Likewise, activists must recognise that being heard carries responsibilities. Evidence matters. Accuracy matters. The rights of others matter. The law matters. And solutions matter.
The purpose of activism should ultimately be to improve society, not simply to produce confrontation.
Windhoek does not need a permanent war between City Hall and its citizens. It needs a mature civic relationship in which residents demand accountability and the municipality responds with transparency, competence and respect.
The City should not fear scrutiny. It should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that its decisions can withstand it.
Activists should not fear lawful processes. They should use them strategically, persistently and intelligently.
There is room for activism.
There is room for protest.
There is room for robust criticism of government.
But there is no room for lawlessness.
And there is certainly no room for a municipality believing that administrative procedure gives it immunity from public accountability.
The solution lies somewhere between populism and bureaucratic defensiveness: in evidence, engagement, transparency, lawful activism and competent governance.
Windhoek’s problems will not be solved by shouting louder than one another.
They will be solved when City Hall listens, activists substantiate their claims, institutions explain their decisions and everyone accepts that democracy is not merely the right to speak.
It is also the responsibility to act within the law.
That standard must apply to everyone.
