Martin Endjala
Nangula Uaandja, the chief executive officer of the Namibia Investment Promotion and Development Board (NIPDB), has defended the government over claims of a lack of transparency around the government-driven green hydrogen (GH2) initiative.
Uaandja recently used the X social media platform to address what she sees as public misunderstandings, particularly with regard to the Namibia Green Hydrogen Programme, which James Mnyupe is the commissioner of.
“The fact is that many people are initiating their projects and then aligning them with government strategy,” she explained.
According to Uaandja, the government only initiated the Hyphen project, which it also allocated in a transparent manner.
Uaandja said all others are privately driven projects funded by German donors.
She said the evaluation for those projects was facilitated by an independent body called the Southern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management (SASSCAL).
“The agenda being spread or driven about lack of information or favouritism in allocating projects/benefits is neither true nor fair,” she pointed out.
She believes that the narrative of lack of transparency is implausible, given that GH2 has all its reports available on its website, and people should take the time to read them.
Uaandja told the Windhoek Observer that Namibians should give GH2 a chance and not see it as a failure.
“If Namibia can sell GH2 to Europe and bring in the EUROS to develop the country and create jobs, there is nothing wrong with that. But now there seems to be this notion of people wanting GH2 to fail so they can come back and say we told you so,” she said.
She said Namibia has regulations and policies in place to ensure that private and public-owned projects adhere to the set laws.
Last month, Graham Hopwood, the executive director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), highlighted several risk factors in the green hydrogen projects, including a lack of transparency—evidenced by the refusal to release key documents and agreements—and opaque processes, particularly regarding access to finance and land.
He also raised concerns about inadequate community consultation, the selection of certain companies and individuals to manage projects, and the involvement of politically exposed persons (PEPs) and their proxies in company structures and licensing arrangements.
Economist Josef Sheehama said the government must communicate in a people-centred manner by providing enough details to prevent miscommunications.
He emphasised that it’s critical to use the right platforms to improve community-level governance through communication.
“People may develop a negative view of a project because the relevant stakeholders were unable to explain it to them. If we want to keep our limited and half-baked engagement going, it will become the norm and nothing will get done,” he said.
Whether the project is a government initiative or not, Sheehama believes effective communication is essential to prevent things like favouritism and handpicking, which leads people to believe that corruption is involved.
He said there is a lack of information about the expertise and qualifications required.
“I discovered that projects had a higher chance of success and sustainability when everyone was involved. Communities would grow wary and refuse to participate in the project initiatives if they don’t understand,” he cautioned.
He added that transparency will make project officials more cautious and make sure they adhere to rules more closely, especially when interacting with citizens.
