There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Namibia’s economic ambitions. On the one hand, the country speaks enthusiastically about attracting investment, creating employment, industrialising its economy and positioning itself as a destination for international capital. On the other, we appear increasingly unable to translate these ambitions into the legislative certainty, administrative efficiency and institutional coordination required to make investment happen.
The revelation that approximately N$15 billion in investment projects are facing administrative and regulatory bottlenecks, while a broader pipeline of 94 projects could generate some 22,000 jobs, should give Parliament and government considerable pause.
These are not merely statistics in a government briefing. Behind every delayed investment is a business that cannot expand, an entrepreneur unable to enter a market, a supplier denied an opportunity and a potential employee who remains unemployed.
For a country grappling with structural unemployment, poverty and an exceptionally narrow productive base, this is an economic cost we can ill afford.
As an entrepreneur, I understand that investment is fundamentally an exercise in confidence. Capital is mobile, but confidence is fragile. Investors assess not only the availability of natural resources, market opportunities and labour, but also the quality of institutions, predictability of regulation and reliability of government decision-making.
Money does not necessarily follow opportunity. It follows opportunity accompanied by acceptable levels of risk.
When legislation affecting investment promotion, land access, public enterprises and international trade remains unresolved for prolonged periods, businesses are left navigating uncertainty. Investment decisions are postponed, financing arrangements become more difficult and project economics can deteriorate.
In a competitive global environment, Namibia must recognise that investors have alternatives. They can take their capital to Botswana, South Africa, Zambia, Angola or other jurisdictions where the regulatory environment may offer greater certainty.
We should not assume that an investment opportunity will patiently wait for us to resolve our political and institutional disagreements.
This brings us to Parliament.
Namibia’s changing parliamentary arithmetic is an important democratic development. A National Assembly in which the ruling party must engage more meaningfully with opposition parties can strengthen accountability, improve legislation and ensure that decisions affecting the public interest receive adequate scrutiny.
That is precisely what representative democracy is supposed to achieve.
However, there is an important distinction between constructive parliamentary scrutiny and legislative obstruction.
Parliament is not simply a theatre for political competition. It is a constitutional institution with responsibilities that extend beyond the interests of individual parties. Its legislative function has direct implications for economic development, social welfare and the livelihoods of ordinary Namibians.
Opposition parties are entitled to interrogate legislation, propose amendments, demand explanations and challenge provisions they consider inappropriate. Indeed, legislation affecting strategic national resources, particularly petroleum, deserves rigorous examination.
The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill illustrates this challenge. Questions about regulatory independence, transparency, local participation and presidential oversight are legitimate and deserve substantive answers.
But parliamentary scrutiny must ultimately be directed towards improving legislation, not perpetuating uncertainty.
Equally, the ruling party must understand that its reduced numerical dominance requires a different approach to legislative management. Consultation cannot be treated as an inconvenience, and parliamentary majorities cannot substitute for sound policy development.
The objective should be legislation that is thoroughly examined, constitutionally sound and capable of implementation.
What should concern us, however, is the erosion of public confidence when Parliament appears unable to reconcile its deliberative responsibilities with the urgency of the country’s economic circumstances.
Namibians do not elect representatives merely to witness political contests. They expect Parliament to create the legislative conditions under which businesses can flourish, jobs can be created and public resources can be deployed effectively.
A young Namibian seeking employment is unlikely to find much comfort in the procedural sophistication of parliamentary debate if the outcome is prolonged uncertainty and delayed economic activity.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate investment pipeline.
Delayed investment has multiplier effects throughout the economy. A manufacturing project creates demand for transport, construction, professional services, maintenance, accommodation and local suppliers. A mining investment generates opportunities for engineering companies, logistics operators, catering businesses and small enterprises in surrounding communities.
When such projects are delayed, these interconnected economic opportunities are delayed too.
Government also loses potential tax revenue, while households lose income and purchasing power. In an economy where domestic demand is already constrained, postponing productive investment can reinforce the very conditions that discourage further private-sector expansion.
The President’s ambition to create 500,000 jobs by 2030 must therefore be evaluated against the institutional capacity to facilitate investment. Employment targets are important expressions of national ambition, but they cannot substitute for functioning economic systems.
Nor should Parliament become the convenient explanation for every delayed investment. The article correctly identifies administrative bottlenecks involving land access, environmental approvals, visas and coordination between public institutions.
These responsibilities fall across different arms of government. Executive departments must also account for delays in drafting legislation, processing applications and coordinating decisions.
There is little value in Parliament passing excellent legislation if public institutions cannot implement it efficiently.
Namibia needs an institutional culture in which the performance of government is measured not only by policies announced and bills passed, but by investments operationalised, businesses established, exports generated and sustainable jobs created.
I would argue for a publicly accessible investment facilitation scorecard, identifying major projects, outstanding approvals, responsible institutions, reasons for delays and expected resolution dates. Such a mechanism would introduce measurable accountability without compromising legitimate commercial confidentiality.
Parliament should also consider structured economic impact assessments for legislation with significant investment implications. Lawmakers should understand not only the constitutional and political consequences of proposed laws, but also their implications for capital formation, employment, competitiveness and small-business participation.
Ultimately, Namibia must decide what kind of economic environment it wishes to cultivate.
We cannot simultaneously proclaim ourselves open for business while allowing institutional uncertainty to become a defining feature of the investment experience.
Democracy requires debate. Economic development requires decisions. The two are not mutually exclusive.
A mature Parliament should be capable of accommodating disagreement without losing sight of national priorities. A responsible government should be capable of defending its legislative proposals without treating scrutiny as hostility. And an opposition should understand that its contribution to democracy includes helping create conditions for national economic progress.
The N$15 billion investment pipeline and the potential 22,000 jobs should be understood as an opportunity, not a political talking point.
For every day that viable projects remain stalled, Namibia risks surrendering economic value that may never be recovered.
Our Parliament must appreciate that its proceedings do not take place in an economic vacuum. Every unresolved legislative question has potential consequences outside the chamber.
The people waiting for jobs are not sitting in Parliament. They are waiting outside it.
And they cannot afford another four years of promises while the institutions entrusted with creating the conditions for prosperity struggle to move from debate to delivery.
