The escalating dispute between the /Khomanin Traditional Community and the Ministry of Urban and Rural Development is about more than a contested traditional leadership. At its heart is a question that should concern every Namibian: what happens when citizens approach government with serious grievances and are left uncertain about what has happened to their submissions?
The confrontation between /Khomanin representatives and Minister James Sankwasa on Tuesday produced no resolution. The community wants answers about its submissions calling for the removal of Chief Julien Gawanas and about an audit into the traditional community’s finances. Sankwasa, meanwhile, insists that the minister cannot simply remove a chief and that established procedures governing traditional leadership must be followed.
Both positions deserve consideration.
The /Khomanin community is entitled to ask government for the status of documents it has submitted. Community activist Shaun Gariseb says consent for an audit was given in April 2024 and that the community has been waiting for clarity on its outcome.
That is a legitimate concern.
Government does not necessarily have to agree with a petition, complaint or demand. But citizens should be told what happened to their submissions, what processes have been initiated, what has been completed and what remains outstanding.
Even when information cannot be disclosed, government should explain why.
Administrative silence is particularly damaging when the underlying dispute involves allegations of financial mismanagement. Unanswered questions create suspicion, while prolonged uncertainty fuels frustration and confrontation.
But the community’s legitimate demand for answers should not be confused with an automatic entitlement to have its preferred outcome imposed.
Sankwasa is correct on an important principle: a minister cannot simply decide to remove one traditional leader and install another. Traditional leadership is governed by prescribed processes, involving the community and the appropriate state structures.
That principle must be respected.
Traditional authorities occupy a unique position in Namibian society. They are not ordinary government departments, and their leadership cannot be determined according to political convenience. If traditional leaders could be removed simply because a group of citizens demanded it, the integrity and independence of traditional institutions would be severely compromised.
If the /Khomanin community believes Chief Gawanas should be removed, it must therefore pursue that objective through the lawful process. If it has already done so, however, government has an obligation to explain what happens next.
This appears to be where Tuesday’s engagement became unnecessarily complicated.
The community says it went to the minister primarily to obtain a status update. Sankwasa responded by explaining the procedure for removing a chief. While the two issues are connected, they are not necessarily identical.
The most useful response from government would be a written account setting out the status of the community’s submissions: what was received, which authority is dealing with the matter, what steps have been taken, what remains outstanding and what the community must do next.
That would remove much of the uncertainty surrounding the dispute.
The audit question requires similar clarity.
Sankwasa distinguished between an Auditor-General’s report, which is submitted to Parliament and becomes public, and an internal audit report intended for administrative purposes. His position is that an internal report cannot simply be released to the public.
That may be correct, but government should be careful about allowing the phrase “internal audit” to become a blanket justification for withholding meaningful information from the people concerned.
There is a difference between releasing a confidential report in its entirety and providing a community with a clear account of whether an audit was conducted, its broad findings and whether any action followed.
Where allegations of financial mismanagement have been raised, transparency is particularly important. If no wrongdoing was found, that should be communicated. If problems were identified, there should be accountability. If the matter remains under consideration, the community should know that too.
Confidentiality and transparency are not necessarily opposites. Good administration requires knowing where each begins and ends.
The manner in which Tuesday’s meeting unfolded is also instructive.
The increasingly tense exchange between Gariseb and Sankwasa suggests that frustration has accumulated on both sides. The community feels ignored; government officials appear frustrated by what they regard as attempts to circumvent established procedures.
Neither position should prevent constructive engagement.
Public officials must be prepared to listen to citizens who believe their grievances have not been addressed. Citizens, in turn, must recognise that government cannot abandon legal procedures simply because a matter is contentious or politically uncomfortable.
The dispute also illustrates the complicated relationship between traditional authorities and the modern Namibian state. Government’s role should not be to take sides in traditional leadership contests. It should be to administer the law fairly, facilitate due process and ensure that legitimate concerns are properly investigated.
That means the /Khomanin community deserves answers. It also means Chief Gawanas deserves due process.
The next step should therefore be documentation rather than confrontation.
If the community approaches the regional governor, as indicated, it should place on record its submissions, correspondence, dates and evidence of the procedures it says it has already followed. The ministry, for its part, should respond formally and clearly.
There is no reason why this dispute should remain trapped in an escalating cycle of accusation and rebuttal.
The larger issue is institutional trust.
Namibians should not have to confront ministers in their offices simply to discover whether their documents have been read or where their complaints stand. Equally, citizens cannot expect government to dispense with laws and procedures because they are dissatisfied with the pace or direction of a process.
The /Khomanin dispute therefore presents an opportunity for both sides to step back.
Government should provide clarity. The community should follow due process. Any allegations of financial wrongdoing should be properly established rather than assumed. And any dispute over traditional leadership should be resolved through the structures established by law.
Ultimately, neither the minister nor the community should seek to win this argument.
The real victory would be a process that is lawful, transparent, timely and credible enough for all sides to accept its outcome.
