A recent controversy surrounding Namibia's public enterprises has highlighted the challenges of effective governance in the country. According to Malcolm Kambanzera, a scholar of Management Strategy, blurred lines between shareholders, ministers, and boards can lead to organisational paralysis and a lack of accountability. Kambanzera's concerns are rooted in his experience, having recently resigned from a board due to shareholder interference.
In private companies, particularly closely held ones, ownership and management can become confused, leading to governance issues. Shareholders have significant rights and interests, but appointing directors does not make them messengers of the shareholder. A board cannot meaningfully govern if its role is simply to endorse decisions already made elsewhere. This raises questions about who carries responsibility when things go wrong.
The issue is also prevalent in Namibia's public enterprises, where ministers and board members often have conflicting roles. Recently, Public Enterprises CEOs Forum chairperson Leake Hangala raised concerns about the relationship between some ministers and public enterprise leadership. Hangala cited an example where a board chairperson was reminded by a minister, "I am your minister," highlighting the tension between oversight and operational control.
The Namcor controversy in 2025 is a prime example of the governance challenges in Namibia's public enterprises. Allegations emerged that then mines and energy minister Natangue Ithete wanted the Namcor board removed amid claims that he was seeking greater influence over the national oil company. The board reportedly wrote to him asking that he stop interfering in its operations, exposing the governance question of how a board can be held accountable if it does not have sufficient space to govern.
This is not a new debate in Namibia, as a similar dispute erupted in 2011 between the Road Fund Administration board and then finance minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila. The minister was accused of interfering after directing the board to halt disciplinary proceedings involving the RFA's chief executive officer and other officials. The board resisted, maintaining that it was exercising its own responsibilities, and the matter eventually reached the High Court.
To address these challenges, Kambanzera argues that boards must stay in their lane and respect the architecture of accountability. Every significant organisational decision should ultimately answer four questions: Who owns the matter? Who has authority to decide? Who must implement it? Who answers for the result? Shareholders, ministers, and boards must exercise their roles without overstepping their boundaries.
Good governance is not about keeping shareholders, ministers, or boards silent, but about respecting the architecture of accountability. When everyone wants the power to decide but nobody wants to own the result, everyone becomes responsible, and no one is accountable. Kambanzera's insights highlight the need for clear governance structures and a culture of accountability in Namibia's public enterprises and private companies.
Key points
- Blurred lines between shareholders, ministers, and boards hinder effective governance and accountability in Namibia's public enterprises and private companies.
- Clear governance structures and a culture of accountability are essential for effective decision-making and organisational success.
- Boards must respect their role and not overstep their boundaries to ensure accountability and good governance.
