Sostenus Wilherm
Popular Democratic Movement president McHenry Venaani has accused the government of failing to coordinate its own affairs after the ministry of agriculture, fisheries, water and land reform appealed an environmental clearance certificate granted to Namibian Marine Phosphate (NMP) for its controversial Sandpiper Marine Phosphate Project.
Speaking to the Windhoek Observer on Wednesday, Venaani said the appeal exposed serious shortcomings in the way government ministries and agencies communicate and make decisions.
“Simply put, no coordination of government agencies. The Cabinet is not in full control of what is happening in ministries. Matters are not reported,” Venaani said.
The ministry of agriculture, fisheries, water and land reform has formally challenged the Environmental Commissioner Timotheus Mufeti’s decision to grant NMP an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for the Sandpiper project offshore Namibia.
The ECC was granted on 5 August 2026, but according to the appeal documents, the agriculture and fisheries ministry only became aware of the decision two days later through a social media post.
Venaani said the circumstances surrounding the clearance raised questions about whether the decision was properly subjected to Cabinet’s principle of collective responsibility.
“This is a case where the President (Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah) was not aware of the certificate being, or the clearance being made,” he said.
“Now the government is instructed to use ministries to do the appeal because this clearance had to pass the test of Cabinet collective responsibility, clearly it did not.”
Venaani said the situation demonstrated what he described as an “absolute” lack of coordination between government institutions.
The appeal, lodged through the Office of the Attorney-General, challenges Mufeti’s decision in its entirety, including all conditions contained in the ECC and the accompanying notification of decision.
The matter has now been escalated to environment, forestry and tourism minister Indileni Daniel, who will consider the appeal.
Environment ministry spokesperson Vilho Hangula confirmed that the ministry had received the appeal.
“For now, I can confirm that we have received the appeal from the ministry of agriculture and fisheries,” Hangula said.
Venaani also questioned the lack of public access to the scientific information supporting the marine phosphate decision, arguing that the debate should be based on evidence rather than political or public sentiment.
“Why are we fighting against science?” Venaani asked.
He called for the marine phosphate report and clearance report to be made public and tabled before parliament so that lawmakers and the public can examine the scientific evidence behind the project.
“I hear the fishing sector are complaining heavily, I hear everybody but nobody is telling us the science,” he said.
Venaani said Namibia should first examine the empirical evidence before deciding whether the project should proceed.
“Even if this thing is appealed and later nullified, release the report, release the clearance report so that we read the science,” he said.
He questioned the potential impact of marine phosphate mining on Namibia’s extensive coastline and fishing industry.
“Nobody can explain to me where this marine phosphate mining is going to happen? Where is it going to affect the fishing sector? And at what level?” Venaani said.
The Sandpiper project has for years remained controversial, with concerns raised over its potential impact on marine ecosystems, fisheries and other ocean-based activities.
Venaani, however, argued that the potential economic benefits should also be assessed alongside the environmental risks, particularly amid Namibia’s high unemployment levels.
“But in a country where you have 60% unemployment of young Namibians, looking at a project of such a magnitude and dismissing it without reading the scientific benefits,” he said.
He stressed that his position was not necessarily an endorsement of the project, but that the decision should be based on credible scientific evidence.
“If the science is saying our fish is going to be affected, fine. But let’s read the empirical evidence,” Venaani said.
“No country can make decisions based on emotions. A country must make decisions based on empirical evidence.”
He called for the evidence to be presented to both parliament and the public so that the country can determine whether the project is viable.
“Present the evidence to parliament, present the evidence to the public, so that we judge for ourselves whether this project is viable or not viable,” Venaani said.
