There is something deeply embarrassing about a municipality being unable to pay its employees.
Not merely unfortunate. Not merely a temporary cash-flow problem. Embarrassing.
When a local authority cannot meet its basic salary obligations, something has gone fundamentally wrong with the way that institution is being governed. And the reported financial crisis at the Keetmanshoop Municipality should force Namibia to confront a much bigger question: Do we actually have sufficiently qualified, capable and accountable people running our towns and local authorities?
The question is uncomfortable, but it can no longer be avoided.
Keetmanshoop is reportedly unable to pay more than 250 employees for October. Its debt to NamWater is said to be approaching N$100 million, while residents owe the municipality more than N$84 million. The council reportedly had to dip into Build Together funds and money owed to it by its electricity business to meet the September payroll.
Yet, while the municipality is struggling to pay salaries, three councillors allegedly travelled to Cape Town without ministerial approval.
One has to ask: what exactly are our priorities?
This is not an argument against councillors travelling when travel is necessary. Local government representatives sometimes need to attend conferences, meetings and engagements outside their jurisdictions. But when an institution cannot pay its workers, every expenditure must pass an extraordinarily high test of necessity, prudence and public value.
A councillor boarding a plane while municipal workers are wondering whether they will receive their salaries sends a terrible message.
It suggests a leadership culture disconnected from the financial reality experienced by the people it is supposed to serve.
And Keetmanshoop is unlikely to be an isolated case.
Recent visits by parliamentary committees to local authorities across the country have exposed troubling patterns of dysfunction, weak financial management, poor governance and a worrying lack of capacity. We hear repeatedly about councils drowning in debt, failing to collect revenue, losing money through inefficient systems and struggling to maintain basic infrastructure.
At the same time, there are persistent allegations of councillors using municipal resources for what appear to be little more than glorified familiarisation tours, workshops, trips and other activities that consume public money without producing commensurate public benefit.
This is where the issue becomes bigger than Keetmanshoop.
Local government is where the state meets the citizen most directly. It is where people expect their rubbish to be collected, their water to flow, their streets to be maintained, their electricity systems to function and their towns to be properly planned.
When local government fails, citizens do not experience an abstract governance problem. They experience it at their front doors.
But there is another uncomfortable issue we must confront: the quality and competence of the people entrusted with these responsibilities.
Being elected is not the same as being qualified to govern.
A person can be popular, politically connected or capable of winning an election and still lack the financial, administrative or technical competence required to oversee a multimillion-dollar institution.
Municipalities are complex organisations. They manage budgets, infrastructure, procurement, human resources, utilities, debt collection, engineering projects, land, housing and increasingly sophisticated information systems.
They cannot be run as political clubs.
A councillor does not need to be an accountant or an engineer. But collectively, councils must possess the competence to understand financial statements, interrogate budgets, challenge management, monitor performance and make decisions based on evidence rather than political expediency.
Where that capacity does not exist, failure is almost inevitable.
The Keetmanshoop crisis also raises questions about political promises. Allegations that voters were encouraged not to pay for municipal services cannot simply be dismissed as political gossip if there is credible evidence to support them. At the same time, such allegations must be properly investigated rather than turned into convenient political ammunition.
The LPM has rejected the allegation, and that position must be acknowledged.
There are also legitimate structural problems. Government departments and businesses reportedly owe municipalities money. Ageing infrastructure is causing significant water losses. Residents themselves owe millions. These are real challenges.
But precisely because these challenges are real, municipalities need better management, not excuses.
A municipality cannot continue buying water that disappears through leaking pipes, fail to collect millions owed by consumers and then expect taxpayers to rescue it.
Nor can central government simply write cheques every time a council gets itself into trouble.
That would reward failure.
Minister Sankwasa’s refusal to bail out Keetmanshoop may therefore be justified in principle. But refusing a bailout cannot mean abandoning the town. Central government has a constitutional and developmental responsibility to ensure that local government functions effectively.
The ministry must intervene where there is evidence of systemic incompetence.
Not necessarily by running municipalities from Windhoek, but by insisting on minimum standards of governance, financial competence, performance management and accountability.
Councillors who repeatedly preside over financial collapse should not simply be allowed to blame officials, residents or previous administrations.
And officials who fail to perform must be held accountable.
Namibia needs a serious conversation about professionalising local government.
Perhaps we need minimum competency requirements for councillors. Perhaps councils should have stronger independent financial oversight. Perhaps municipalities with persistent failures should be placed under structured intervention before they reach the point of being unable to pay salaries.
What cannot continue is the current cycle: elect a council, accumulate debt, blame residents, blame central government, ask suppliers for concessions, consume scarce resources on travel and allowances, and eventually expect taxpayers to rescue the institution.
That is not governance.
It is financial irresponsibility disguised as politics.
Keetmanshoop’s crisis should therefore serve as a warning to every town council in Namibia.
A municipality exists to serve its residents, not to serve the people who sit in its council chambers.
The first obligation of any council is to ensure that the institution entrusted to it remains financially and administratively viable.
If it cannot even pay its workers, it has failed at the most basic level.
And if Namibia is serious about development, central government must stop treating dysfunctional local authorities as someone else’s problem.
The rot will not correct itself.
It requires intervention, competence, accountability and, above all, the political courage to put the public interest ahead of the interests of those who have discovered that municipal office can be used as a vehicle for personal privilege.
Our towns deserve better. And so do the people who live and work in them.
