The capital is buckling under the weight of urbanisation, yet Namibia continues to concentrate opportunity, services and economic activity in one city. If government wants to ease the pressure on Windhoek, it must stop treating decentralisation as a slogan and start making it work.
There is something deeply troubling about the City of Windhoek having to explain to Parliament that it cannot keep pace with the influx of people into the capital. It is not merely a municipal problem. It is an indictment of how Namibia has organised its development since independence.
When the capital’s Chief Executive Officer, Moses Matyayi, reportedly told a parliamentary hearing that approximately 12,000 people arrive in Windhoek and remain there every year, he was describing a challenge that extends far beyond the city’s administrative boundaries. It is a national development failure, and central government cannot continue to look the other way.
Perhaps the time has come for Namibia to put up an imaginary sign at the entrance to the capital: Windhoek is full, go home.
Of course, nobody should literally be told to go home. Every Namibian has the constitutional right to move freely and reside anywhere in the country. Windhoek belongs to all Namibians, not merely those fortunate enough to have been born here or to have secured a foothold in its economy.
But the uncomfortable question remains: why must so many Namibians leave their hometowns, villages and regions to pursue opportunities that should, in a properly functioning national economy, exist closer to where they live?
Why should a young person from Kavango, Ohangwena, Kunene or the Zambezi feel compelled to migrate to Windhoek to find employment, access certain public services, start a business or secure a future? Why should the capital continue absorbing the consequences of economic activity that government policy should be distributing more equitably across the country?
Urbanisation is not inherently a problem. Cities grow because people seek opportunity. The problem arises when one city becomes the overwhelming destination for people whose home regions offer too few viable alternatives.
Decentralisation must mean more than transferring administrative responsibilities.
For years, Namibia has spoken about decentralisation, regional development and bringing government closer to the people. Yet the persistent concentration of opportunities in Windhoek suggests that the country has not done enough to translate those ambitions into meaningful economic change.
Moving offices to regional centres is not sufficient. Decentralisation requires the deliberate relocation of economic activity, investment, skilled employment, public institutions and essential services.
It means making Oshakati, Rundu, Katima Mulilo, Otjiwarongo, Eenhana, Keetmanshoop and other regional centres places where people can build prosperous lives without feeling that they must eventually migrate to the capital.
It means locating appropriate government agencies outside Windhoek, strengthening regional hospitals and educational institutions, improving roads and digital connectivity, and ensuring that businesses can operate competitively beyond the Khomas Region.
It also means empowering regional and local authorities with the funding, technical expertise and decision-making authority required to deliver results.
Central government cannot demand that people remain in their regions while concentrating the very opportunities that attract them to Windhoek.
The City of Windhoek cannot be expected to solve a national problem with municipal resources.
Every additional resident creates demand for housing, water, sanitation, roads, public transport, waste management and other services. When population growth consistently outpaces infrastructure investment, informal settlements expand, service delivery comes under pressure and the struggle for affordable accommodation intensifies.
These pressures affect existing residents and newcomers alike. They also expose the limitations of a development model that allows the capital to absorb population growth without adequately coordinating housing, infrastructure and employment planning.
Parliament should therefore treat Matyayi’s warning as a call for coordinated national action, not simply another municipal funding appeal.
Central government must work with the City of Windhoek to establish a realistic urban growth strategy, supported by infrastructure investment and clear responsibilities. It must also develop a properly funded decentralisation programme with measurable targets, timelines and accountability.
Which institutions can be relocated? Which regional towns can support new industries? What incentives will encourage businesses to invest outside the capital? How much public investment will be directed towards those centres, and how will progress be measured?
These are questions requiring answers, not another round of consultations followed by another policy document.
Namibia cannot reverse urbanisation by discouraging people from moving. It can, however, reduce the desperation that drives migration by creating credible alternatives elsewhere.
The irony is that decentralisation would not only relieve pressure on Windhoek. It could unlock neglected regional economies, create employment closer to communities, strengthen local markets and make national development more inclusive.
The capital will always attract people. That is normal. What is neither inevitable nor acceptable is a situation in which geography increasingly determines access to opportunity.
Windhoek is not full of Namibians. It is full of the consequences of a national development strategy that has yet to distribute opportunity widely enough.
If government wants fewer people arriving in the capital out of economic necessity, it must give them compelling reasons to stay where they are.
Until then, the sign may remain imaginary, but the frustration behind it is real.
