Namibia’s liberation veterans occupy a unique place in the country’s history. They are not simply another category of beneficiaries in a government social programme. Many participated in the struggle that culminated in independence, often at considerable personal cost. Their contribution is part of the foundation on which the Namibian state was built.
That is precisely why the latest revelation that approximately 11 000 registered liberation veterans remain without Individual Veterans’ Projects (IVPs) deserves serious national attention.
The figures presented by the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs are stark. Of approximately 26 000 registered liberation veterans, only about 15 000 have benefited from the once-off N$200 000 IVP grant. Funding the remaining beneficiaries is estimated to require N$1.9 billion.
This is not merely an accounting problem. It is a question of whether a commitment made by the state can be honoured in a reasonable and predictable manner.
Shadow minister Aloisius Kangulu is therefore justified in asking government to provide Parliament with a clear, time-bound plan for addressing the backlog. Veterans who have been waiting for assistance should not have to rely on political statements, annual budget announcements or vague assurances to know whether and when they will receive the support they were promised.
At the same time, the debate must be conducted responsibly. N$1.9 billion is a substantial amount of money, particularly when the government is already facing competing demands across education, healthcare, housing, infrastructure, social protection and employment creation.
The ministry itself reportedly faces a N$161 million deficit under the veterans’ affairs subsidies budget, while monthly financial grants to veterans average about N$81 million. These figures demonstrate that the issue cannot simply be resolved by demanding that Treasury find another large allocation overnight.
There must be an honest conversation about affordability, priorities and sustainability.
Government should begin by publishing a comprehensive account of the veterans’ programme. Parliament and the public need to understand how many registered veterans remain outstanding, how beneficiaries are prioritised, what has been spent to date, what the IVPs have achieved and what mechanisms exist to ensure that grants translate into sustainable livelihoods.
The original rationale behind the IVP model was sound. A once-off grant intended to establish an income-generating project has greater potential for long-term empowerment than indefinite dependence on monthly assistance. But such programmes only work if beneficiaries receive appropriate support, business guidance and monitoring.
A N$200 000 injection into a poorly conceived or unsupported project can disappear quickly. A smaller intervention accompanied by training, mentorship, market access and financial discipline may produce a much more durable outcome.
The government should therefore resist treating the IVP as simply a payment obligation. It should be evaluated as an economic empowerment programme.
There is also an important demographic reality that cannot be ignored. Many liberation veterans are now elderly. Time is therefore not a neutral factor. Delays that might be administratively tolerable in another programme become considerably more serious when beneficiaries are advancing in age and may have limited opportunities to rebuild their livelihoods.
The state cannot change the passage of time. It can, however, improve the urgency and efficiency with which it responds.
Kangulu’s broader argument about natural resources also deserves consideration, although it should not be allowed to obscure the immediate funding question. Namibia is entering an era of significant economic possibilities in areas such as oil, gas, green hydrogen and critical minerals, alongside established sectors such as mining, fisheries and agriculture.
The central question is whether these opportunities will produce broad-based economic participation or simply expand government revenues and corporate balance sheets.
Veterans should be part of a wider national conversation about economic inclusion, but so should young Namibians, women, small businesses and communities historically excluded from meaningful ownership and participation.
This means moving beyond the familiar language of empowerment towards practical mechanisms: transparent procurement, access to finance, skills development, partnerships with established companies and opportunities for Namibians to participate throughout value chains.
However, natural resources cannot become a convenient solution to every social obligation. Revenues from future resource projects are uncertain, cyclical and subject to market conditions. Veterans’ support requires a predictable funding framework rather than dependence on whichever commodity happens to perform well.
Government should consequently consider establishing a multi-year veterans’ funding framework, subject to parliamentary oversight. Such a framework could identify the outstanding liability, establish annual targets for clearing the IVP backlog and provide transparent reporting on expenditure and outcomes.
It should also examine whether some veterans can be supported through collective enterprises rather than individual grants, where appropriate. Cooperatives and structured partnerships could potentially create stronger businesses, particularly in agriculture, services and supply chains.
Ultimately, Namibia must avoid two equally unhelpful positions. One is to treat every demand for veterans’ support as politically untouchable, regardless of cost or effectiveness. The other is to regard veterans’ welfare as an inconvenient financial burden that can be postponed indefinitely.
Neither approach serves the country.
Liberation veterans deserve dignity, not perpetual political symbolism. Government commemorations, speeches and monuments have their place, but they cannot substitute for practical economic security. Equally, public money must be used responsibly, transparently and in ways that produce lasting benefits.
The N$1.9 billion gap should therefore be treated neither as a political weapon nor as an impossible obligation. It is a financial commitment requiring a credible plan.
Namibia owes its veterans gratitude. But gratitude must be translated into policy that is fair to beneficiaries, accountable to taxpayers and sustainable for future generations.
The time has come for government to provide the numbers, the timetable and the plan, and then to deliver.
