Lazarus Kwedhi
President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s appointment of a new layer of special advisors has put her leadership to an early test and put the taxpayer on the hook.
Article 32 of the Constitution and the Special Advisors and Regional Governors Appointment Act of 1990 give the President broad executive power.
But that power carries a burden: to use it in a way that strengthens accountable institutions, and not duplicate appointments at the public’s expense.
The creation of “shadow advisors” operating in parallel to Cabinet raises both a constitutional question and a simple budget question: why are Namibians paying twice for the same advice?
The legal framework is clear. The Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, is the principal advisory body to the Head of State.
It is supported by offices established by law such as the Attorney-General, the National Planning Commission, the Governor of the Bank of Namibia as well as by a civil service of executive directors, directors, and technical staff.
These structures are accountable to Parliament, their mandates are defined in law, and their salaries are debated in the national budget.
Shadow advisors break that model, because they are not accountable to Parliament and their roles are not defined by statute.
Yet they occupy offices, draw salaries, employ staff, and travel on the taxpayer’s dime. The burden of double appointments is not just a governance risk. It is a financial waste of taxpayers money.
Four problems flow from double appointment
Firstly, competence and trust. If the President must appoint extra advisors on top of ministers, executive directors, and directors, it signals either incompetence among the principal advisors or lack of trust in them.
If the issue is competence, remove them and appoint someone capable of carrying the constitutional mandate without shadow advisors. And if the issue is trust, collective Cabinet responsibility collapses.
Thus, adding another layer of special advisors on top of principal advisor does not solve either problem, but hides it behind another payroll.
Secondly, a failed succession plan. Many of the new appointments are retirees who already served and in some instances failed.
Hence, their return suggests they did not groom or train successors while in office. Now, instead of stepping aside, they continue to exert influence and draw a salary from the shadows.
That is not system renewal, but a blockage of younger technocrats and academics in the public service from advancing, and keeps the same small circle of names in control.
Thirdly, weak vetting and integrity. Some appointments have already raised questions about background. Every questionable appointment is a waste of public money and damages public confidence in the State Intelligence Services and President, who is the appointing authority of the head of intelligence. When vetting fails, accountability goes to the top.
Fourthly, broken promises on cost. President Nandi-Ndaitwah campaigned on “business unusual” and pledged to cut the high cost of government. In April 2026, she did the opposite by appointing a new minister in the Presidency, seven new deputy ministers, and a fresh batch of special advisors.
The expansion was done behind closed doors and looks like business as usual as similar to her predecessors, who expanded the executive without explaining the cost and performance to the public.
Taken together, these appointments risk being seen as “jobs for comrades.”
When advisors have no published mandate, when their work overlaps with ministers, and when they are drawn from the same pool of retired officials, the line between governance and patronage disappears.
Article 32 grants the President wide power for a reason: to enable decisive leadership in the public interest. But power without restraint becomes expensive.
Cabinet exists to be scrutinized by Parliament and held to account by the people. Shadow advisors exist outside that system.
The more the President relies on them, the weaker Cabinet becomes and the more Namibians pay for advice they already funded once in the name of cabinet.
This is the burden of double appointment. Not just in constitutional terms, but in dollars and cents. If “business unusual” means anything, it must mean ending the habit of paying twice for the same job.
Otherwise, executive power becomes an expensive echo chamber and the bill lands on every Namibian taxpayer.
Namibia is watching which path the President chooses to restore public confidence.
