The call by the Walvis Bay Chamber of Business and the Namibia Local Business Association (NALOBA) for an extension of the Namibian Tax Amnesty Programme deserves serious consideration by the Ministry of Finance and the Namibia Revenue Agency (NamRA). With the programme scheduled to close on 31 October 2026, the authorities face a choice: insist on a deadline that could exclude struggling but willing taxpayers, or provide a reasonable extension that strengthens compliance, protects jobs and ultimately improves revenue collection.
The Windhoek Observer believes an extension is justified. This is not an argument for excusing tax evasion or allowing businesses to disregard their obligations indefinitely. It is an argument for recognising economic reality and designing a tax administration system that encourages compliance rather than punishing taxpayers whose financial circumstances prevent them from meeting an otherwise reasonable deadline.
The programme has already demonstrated its value. According to figures cited by the Walvis Bay Chamber of Business, N$380.2 million in interest and N$9.8 billion in penalties have been waived. These are substantial concessions, reflecting the government’s willingness to help taxpayers regularise their affairs and restore their relationship with the revenue authorities.
However, the success of an amnesty cannot be measured only by the penalties and interest written off. Its real value must also be assessed by how many taxpayers are brought back into the formal tax system, how much outstanding principal tax is recovered and whether viable businesses are given a fair opportunity to continue operating.
This is where the case for an extension becomes compelling.
The central difficulty identified by both organisations is that many businesses cannot afford to settle their outstanding principal tax before the deadline. Although the amnesty offers relief from interest and penalties, taxpayers must still pay the qualifying principal amount to benefit. For a business struggling to generate sufficient working capital, that requirement can remain insurmountable, even after substantial relief has been granted.
NALOBA has highlighted the plight of small and medium enterprises that closed or became inactive during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. Many have not fully recovered. Limited access to financing, weak demand and accumulated liabilities continue to constrain their operations. It is unrealistic to assume that every business can generate enough cash within the remaining days to settle years of accumulated tax debt.
The Walvis Bay Chamber makes an equally important point: aggregate economic growth does not automatically translate into cash in the bank for individual businesses. Recovery takes time. Revenue must be generated, expenses met, suppliers paid and wages sustained before additional funds become available to settle historical liabilities.
The foot-and-mouth disease outbreak adds another dimension. Confirmed cases in Karasburg and the Zambezi Region, together with the European Union’s temporary suspension of specified meat products from Namibia’s previously foot-and-mouth-disease-free zone, have created further uncertainty for farmers, meat producers and businesses supporting the livestock value chain. These pressures affect not only those directly involved in agriculture but also transporters, suppliers, processors and other service providers.
In an economy where unemployment stood at 36.9% in 2023, according to the official figure cited by the chamber, government should be careful not to undermine viable enterprises through unnecessarily rigid administrative deadlines. Every business that survives has the potential to preserve employment, sustain household incomes, pay suppliers and contribute to future tax revenue.
The choice is not between collecting taxes and helping businesses. A well-designed extension can advance both objectives.
We therefore support a 24-month extension, as proposed by NALOBA, with consideration given to the Walvis Bay Chamber’s request for a longer period. An extension to October 2028 would provide meaningful breathing room without making the programme indefinite. The authorities should establish clear eligibility rules, publish the revised conditions and communicate them promptly so that taxpayers can plan accordingly.
Crucially, an extension must be accompanied by practical payment arrangements. Taxpayers should be allowed to settle outstanding principal tax through instalments based on their financial capacity, provided they meet agreed obligations and remain compliant with current tax requirements. Such arrangements should distinguish between businesses genuinely attempting to regularise their affairs and those seeking to exploit the system.
The chamber’s proposal to establish a fixed cut-off date for eligible historical liabilities also deserves consideration. Clear boundaries would prevent the extension from becoming an open-ended expectation of future amnesties. Dedicated assistance with registration on the Integrated Tax Administration System (ITAS), account reconciliations and overdue returns would further help taxpayers who want to comply but struggle with administrative obstacles.
NamRA must also ensure that taxpayers understand exactly what they owe. Disputed assessments, unreconciled accounts and uncertainty about outstanding liabilities can prevent otherwise willing businesses from taking advantage of relief. An extension would be an opportunity to resolve these issues and improve the quality of the tax register.
There is, of course, a legitimate concern that repeated extensions could weaken tax discipline. Businesses that pay taxes on time may reasonably question why others receive repeated concessions. Government must address that concern through a firm commitment that the extended programme is exceptional, time-bound and followed by consistent enforcement.
But fairness also requires recognising the difference between unwillingness to pay and inability to pay. A taxpayer who deliberately evades obligations should not receive the same treatment as an enterprise seeking to settle its debts but lacking the immediate cash flow to do so.
The government should not confuse a deadline with a successful outcome. Collecting principal tax from more businesses over an achievable period may prove more productive than insisting on immediate payment from taxpayers who simply cannot afford it.
With the deadline only days away, the Ministry of Finance and NamRA should urgently engage the business community and announce a clear decision. The requests from both the Walvis Bay Chamber of Business and NALOBA demonstrate that this is not an isolated concern.
A tax amnesty should be a bridge back to compliance, not an opportunity that expires before struggling taxpayers can reach it. Extending the programme, while imposing clear conditions and credible enforcement, would offer businesses a realistic second chance and give the state a better prospect of recovering revenue.
Namibia needs businesses that pay their taxes, employ people and contribute to economic growth. Giving viable enterprises sufficient time to settle their obligations is not a concession against the public interest. Properly managed, it is an investment in it.
