Patience Makwele
Members of parliament have questioned whether the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill provides sufficient safeguards for state revenue as it proposes transferring several powers from the minister of industries, mines and energy to the President.
The debate centred on the proposed establishment of an Upstream Petroleum Unit (UPU) in the Office of the President and changes to powers over royalties, petroleum licences, local content and environmental obligations.
Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) Chief Whip Winnie Moongo said the proposed amendment to Section 63 of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act raised financial concerns because the current law requires the concurrence of the minister of finance when royalties are remitted, refunded or deferred.
“Clause 9 amends Section 63 of the Act, and it raises immediate financial red flags,” Moongo said.
She said the existing safeguard should not be weakened as Namibia prepares to benefit from its petroleum resources.
“Legal safeguards must operate before public money is waived, not after it has left the treasury,” she said.
Moongo also questioned whether the Bill’s local-content provisions would guarantee meaningful participation by Namibians, arguing that objectives without binding requirements, measurable targets and consequences for non-compliance would not be enough.
She concluded by saying: “I, therefore, object this Bill.”
Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) MP Ottilie Haitota rejected the Bill, warning that the proposed framework could give government and regulators substantial discretion over petroleum licences and decisions involving resources belonging to Namibians.
“A petroleum licence is not comparable to an ordinary government permit,” Haitota said.
She said excessive discretion could create opportunities for lobbying, preferential treatment, conflicts of interest and commercial influence.
Haitota also questioned who would carry the cost of environmental rehabilitation if a petroleum company could no longer meet its obligations.
“If a petroleum company leaves after extracting the resource, who carries the cost of restoring the environment?” she asked.
“If the company is no longer financially capable of meeting its obligations, who pays?” she added.
PDM MP Koviao Hengari said the proposed UPU could improve coordination and professional capacity, but argued that the transfer of powers must be accompanied by strong checks and balances.
“The President is not the problem. Concentrated power without equally strong public, parliamentary and legal control is the problem,” Hengari said.
He warned that transferring royalty powers to the President should not weaken existing fiscal controls and called for written reasons, independent fiscal assessments, publication and parliamentary scrutiny when royalties are remitted, refunded or deferred.
Swapo MP Ephraim Nekongo, however, supported the Bill, saying Namibia’s petroleum sector has changed significantly since the existing framework was introduced in 1991 and now requires specialised institutional capacity.
“I rise in support of the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill, 2025,” Nekongo said.
He defended placing the UPU in the Office of the President, arguing that the arrangement did not amount to unchecked presidential control.
“The establishment of the Upstream Petroleum Unit within the Office of the President is not, in itself, inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia,” he said.
Nekongo said Parliament would retain its legislative, budgetary and oversight responsibilities.
Swapo MP and chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Tobie Aupindi, also supported the establishment of the UPU but stressed the need for professional administration.
“The Upstream Petroleum Unit must be a professional institution, not a political office,” Aupindi said.
He cautioned that placing the unit under the Presidency should not shield it from scrutiny.
“But elevation to the Office of the President must not mean insulation from oversight,” he said.
Aupindi said the institution responsible for policy should not also be responsible for auditing compliance, calling for clear institutional mandates and independent oversight.
