The allegations surrounding Otjiwarongo Municipality chief executive officer Mberipura Hifitikeko should concern every Namibian, not merely because they involve a housing allowance, but because they strike at a fundamental principle of public administration: those entrusted with managing public resources must themselves be beyond reproach.
It is important to state from the outset that these remain allegations. No formal finding has yet been made, and Mr Hifitikeko deserves the same presumption of innocence afforded to every citizen. Allegations are not proof, and due process must be allowed to take its course.
But allegations involving public money cannot simply be brushed aside as administrative oversights or internal personnel matters. They demand swift, transparent and independent verification.
The issue is remarkably straightforward.
Government policy, municipal regulations and recent directives from the Ministry of Works and Transport are unequivocal. An official cannot lawfully receive a housing allowance while simultaneously occupying government or council-owned accommodation. The two benefits are mutually exclusive.
There is no legal grey area.
There is no complicated interpretation.
One either qualifies for one benefit or the other.
If the allegations are incorrect, they should be dispelled immediately through documentary evidence. If they are correct, then the issue extends far beyond asking an official to “choose” between two benefits going forward.
That would amount to treating an alleged violation as though it were merely an administrative preference.
Public accountability cannot operate prospectively only.
The mayor of Otjiwarongo, Leonard Simushi, deserves credit for indicating that he will investigate the matter. Public officials should not ignore allegations involving possible misuse of public funds. His willingness to examine the issue is therefore welcome.
However, his proposed remedy raises uncomfortable questions.
If the municipality ultimately concludes that the CEO has indeed been benefiting from both a housing allowance and council accommodation simultaneously, why should the solution simply be to stop one of the benefits?
What happens to the money already received?
Was it lawfully paid?
Should it be repaid?
Should disciplinary procedures follow?
Should law enforcement become involved if criminal statutes have been breached?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the questions every taxpayer should expect government institutions to answer.
Accountability loses its meaning if the consequence of an unlawful benefit is merely that one is asked politely not to continue receiving it.
Equally concerning is the apparent lack of oversight revealed by the responses from municipal leadership.
The mayor says he did not know where his CEO lives.
Human Resources reportedly says it also does not know.
That explanation should worry Namibians.
Housing benefits are not casual arrangements agreed over coffee. They are components of remuneration packages, processed through payroll systems, supported by documentation and governed by clear regulations.
Municipalities should know whether an employee receives a housing allowance.
They should know whether that employee occupies municipal accommodation.
If these two pieces of information cannot be reconciled internally, then the problem extends beyond one individual. It reflects weaknesses in administrative controls that create opportunities for error, negligence or abuse.
Strong institutions should never depend solely on individual honesty. They should possess systems capable of detecting irregularities automatically.
This case also arrives at a politically sensitive moment.
Only recently, Minister Veikko Nekundi publicly warned against precisely this form of “double-dipping”, emphasising that officials occupying government accommodation while receiving housing benefits would face eviction and financial consequences.
That warning was intended to send a message that public resources are not personal entitlements.
If those standards apply to ordinary civil servants, they must apply equally to chief executive officers of municipalities.
Indeed, the higher one climbs in public office, the greater, not lesser, the expectation of accountability should become.
Leadership is not simply about directing others.
It is about modelling compliance with the very rules one expects subordinates to obey.
Namibia has made commendable progress in strengthening governance over the past three decades. Institutions such as the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Auditor-General and parliamentary oversight committees have reinforced the principle that public office carries fiduciary responsibilities.
Yet governance is tested not during speeches about integrity but when allegations emerge against influential officials.
Will institutions investigate objectively?
Will they publish their findings?
Will corrective action follow where necessary?
Or will the matter quietly disappear once public attention shifts elsewhere?
Public confidence depends on those answers.
Municipalities occupy a unique position in citizens’ daily lives. They collect rates and taxes, provide water and sanitation, maintain roads and allocate land. Every dollar they spend originates from communities that often struggle to afford rising living costs.
Residents who faithfully pay municipal accounts expect every cent to be managed honestly.
That expectation becomes even stronger in a country facing severe housing shortages.
Thousands of Namibians wait years for serviced land.
Many families live in informal settlements without secure tenure.
Young professionals struggle to purchase their first homes.
Against that backdrop, allegations involving improper housing benefits inevitably resonate far beyond one municipality.
They become symbolic of a broader concern that those closest to public resources may sometimes enjoy privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens.
This is precisely why transparency matters.
The municipality should complete its investigation promptly.
Its findings should be made public.
If the allegations are unfounded, the CEO’s reputation deserves full vindication.
If they are substantiated, then recovery of improperly received benefits, disciplinary action and any other legally prescribed consequences should follow without fear or favour.
Namibia cannot build a culture of accountability through selective enforcement.
Rules either apply to everyone or they eventually lose their authority over anyone.
Public office is a public trust.
It is not a buffet where officials select whichever benefits happen to be most advantageous.
The law, after all, was never written to be optional.
