Before courts determine whether Minister Veikko Nekundi acted within the law in dismissing the Namibia Airports Company (NAC) board, the public debate has already exposed a broader governance question that extends well beyond one state-owned enterprise.
It is a question every minister, every board and every public official should confront: where does political authority end and institutional governance begin?
That question matters because Namibia’s public enterprises are not extensions of individual ministers. They are statutory institutions created to serve the public interest. Their success depends on good governance, legal certainty and professional management, not personalities, politics or power struggles.
The dismissal of the NAC board has rapidly evolved into more than a dispute over the disposal of vehicles or allegations of governance failures. It has become a test of how faithfully government itself adheres to the rule of law.
The former board members have mounted a detailed defence of their record. They argue that they inherited an institution facing severe financial distress, declining cash reserves, operational challenges and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. They point to measurable improvements, including a return to profitability, consecutive unqualified audit opinions, reduced litigation, improved governance ratings and the completion of strategic infrastructure projects.
Minister Nekundi, on the other hand, maintains that his intervention was necessary to strengthen governance and restore confidence in the institution.
Both positions deserve to be heard.
Neither should be accepted simply because of who is making the argument.
This is precisely why the law provides processes through which allegations can be tested objectively rather than politically.
The Windhoek Observer has consistently maintained that accountability is indispensable in public administration. No board, executive or minister should be immune from scrutiny. Public institutions manage public assets, and every decision affecting those assets must withstand legal and ethical examination.
However, accountability cannot exist without fairness.
Nor can fairness exist without due process.
The former board has raised what appears to be a substantive legal question regarding the minister’s authority to remove directors appointed under the Public Enterprises Governance Act. They argue that appointments were made through a different statutory process and therefore cannot simply be undone through ministerial discretion.
Power must serve the law, not the ego
Whether that legal interpretation is correct is ultimately for the courts to determine.
But the question itself is legitimate.
Indeed, it would be deeply concerning if ministers could remove boards simply because confidence had broken down or because they disagreed with decisions taken years earlier, without following the procedures established by law.
Public power is not unlimited.
Namibia’s constitutional democracy deliberately places limits on executive authority because history has repeatedly shown that unchecked political power eventually undermines institutions.
The Constitution does not merely empower ministers.
It restrains them.
That principle protects ministers as much as it protects citizens because lawful government creates certainty.
Every minister inherits institutions that existed before their appointment and will continue after their departure. Their responsibility is not to personalise those institutions but to strengthen them.
Too often, however, governance disputes become personalised.
Political office sometimes creates the mistaken impression that authority automatically translates into unlimited discretion.
It does not.
Ministers have enormous responsibilities, but they also operate within statutory boundaries established by Parliament.
Those boundaries are not inconveniences to be overcome.
They are safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary government.
If those safeguards become optional, institutional independence begins to erode.
This case also raises an equally important issue for boards themselves.
Directors cannot rely solely on positive financial results as proof of good governance.
Profitability, improved audits and successful projects are commendable achievements, but they do not automatically validate every governance decision taken along the way.
Strong financial performance and procedural compliance are complementary, not interchangeable.
A profitable institution can still commit governance failures.
Likewise, procedural shortcomings do not necessarily erase years of successful institutional reform.
That distinction is important because public debate often reduces governance disputes into simplistic choices between heroes and villains.
Reality is seldom that simple.
Administrative weaknesses should be corrected.
Where misconduct exists, consequences should follow.
Where legal authority has been exceeded, remedies should equally apply.
The objective should never be protecting individuals.
It should be protecting institutions.
This is where the President’s repeated emphasis on improving governance across public enterprises becomes particularly relevant.
State-owned enterprises cannot deliver national development if they operate in perpetual uncertainty.
Boards need confidence that lawful decisions will be respected.
Executives require clarity regarding reporting structures.
Employees deserve organisational stability.
Investors seek predictable governance environments.
Frequent institutional upheaval, particularly when accompanied by legal disputes, rarely strengthens public confidence.
Instead, it creates hesitation, delays decision-making and distracts leadership from service delivery.
The NAC itself illustrates why stability matters.
Namibia’s aviation sector remains central to tourism, trade and investment.
Airport expansion, route development, infrastructure maintenance and commercial partnerships require continuity over many years.
Every governance dispute carries opportunity costs that extend beyond boardrooms.
Ultimately, ordinary Namibians are less interested in political disagreements than in functioning institutions.
Passengers want efficient airports.
Businesses want reliable logistics.
Investors want certainty.
Taxpayers want public assets managed responsibly.
Those expectations require mature governance rather than institutional confrontation.
The courts may eventually determine whether Minister Nekundi acted within his statutory powers.
Should they find he acted lawfully, the decision will reinforce the principle that ministers possess defined intervention powers under appropriate circumstances.
Should they find otherwise, it will equally reinforce an even more fundamental constitutional principle, that public authority must always derive from law, not office.
Either outcome would strengthen constitutional governance.
That is precisely why legal processes should be allowed to unfold without political intimidation or premature conclusions.
This dispute should also serve as a lesson for every member of Cabinet.
Strong leadership is not measured by how quickly one dismisses boards or overturns previous decisions.
It is measured by respect for institutions, adherence to the law and restraint in the exercise of power.
Public office demands confidence, but it also demands humility.
The temptation to embark on ego-driven interventions is one that every minister must consciously resist.
Institutions are not personal fiefdoms.
Boards are not political opponents.
State-owned enterprises belong neither to ministers nor directors.
They belong to the people of Namibia.
Every decision affecting them should therefore answer one simple question: Does it strengthen the institution or merely satisfy the ambitions of those temporarily entrusted with its oversight?
That is the standard by which this matter—and every future intervention in Namibia’s public enterprises, should ultimately be judged.
