Namibia

Published May 2025

Relevant legislation:

Summary

In 2017, Namibia passed the Namibian Whistleblower Protection Act 10 of 2017 (the Act). The Act provides for the establishment of a Whistleblower Office to investigate disclosures of improper conduct, as well as complaints of retaliation against individuals who make such disclosures. It sets out protections for individuals making disclosures, but, like most countries, Namibia offers no financial rewards for whistleblowing – even if the whistleblower discloses fraud that results in financial loss to the government.

There are shortcomings in the Act, specifically as it relates to state agencies. The Act states that if the disclosure “principally involves questioning the merits of government policy, including the policy of a public body,” then the whistleblower may not be protected.

To qualify for protection, the whistleblower must disclose in good faith, and they must have reasonable cause to believe the information disclosed is substantially true. The subjectivity of these requirements, combined with the state agency limitations included in the Act, can harm the willingness of potential whistleblowers to report wrongdoing. This is particularly true of those employed or situated within official state agencies, where misconduct and fraud are often perpetuated under the guise of public policy and the implementation of strategic state objectives.

There is substantial evidence that the application of the Act, in conjunction with the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, read with the Financial Intelligence Act and the Anti-Corruption Act, would provide sufficient tools to effectively prosecute implicated parties. However, the political will seems to be lacking in Namibia to pursue the goals of achieving sustainable, transparent, good governance.

The abuse of the allocation of fishing quotas intended to benefit poor people in Namibia and Angola was initiated by a cabal consisting of politically connected business people, two serving ministers in the portfolios of justice and the department of fisheries; and one of the largest commercial fishing companies in the world, SAMHERJI based in Iceland. The progress in making headway in the prosecution of the implicated parties, five years on from the disclosure, is abysmally slow, and a clear indication that the Act has good form but no substance.

Namibia has begun taking steps to improve whistleblower protections and encourage the reporting of corrupt activities by passing supportive legislation. However, the Whistleblower Protection Act will only be effective once the enabling agencies tasked with the implementation of the provisions of the Act, upon receipt of disclosures, are sufficiently resourced and staffed.

Whistleblower laws and policies

The Whistleblower Protection Act and the Witness Protection Act work together to create the bulwark of Namibia’s whistleblower protection laws.

The Whistleblower Protection Act No.10 of 2017 provides for the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Office. It criminalises retaliation against reporters of misconduct and corruption and imposes a fine of 75,000 Namibian dollars and/or a jail term not exceeding 15 years on anyone convicted of retaliation. The Act protects any person who makes a report that qualifies for protection under the law, no matter who they are or their professional relationship to the organisation engaging in the misconduct. However, as laudable as the Namibian Whistleblower Protection Act 10/2017 is, the application of its provisions has been lamentable, especially as evidenced by the biggest scandal involving corruption and fraud, with key members of the Namibian government being central players in what has become known as the “FishRot Scandal”.

Namibia is one of only two countries in the region to extend its whistleblower protections to anyone, including those outside a labour relationship with the alleged wrongdoer. It provides that whistleblower protection is granted from the date of the first receipt of the disclosure of wrongdoing until the Commissioner of the Whistleblower Protection Office terminates protection according to the conditions laid out in section 52 of the Act. That being said, despite its provision in the Act, no active Whistleblower Protection Office has been put into place. As such, the absence of an active Whistleblower Protection Office is a serious obstacle in the fight against current and future corrupt activities.

Section 45(1)(d) of the Whistleblower Protection Act additionally provides for whistleblower protection under the broader Witness Protection Act of 2017 where applicable. The Witness Protection Act includes provisions for the effective protection of witnesses and other associated persons whose safety may be at risk as a result of their disclosures of impropriety and as a result of testifying in proceedings arising from the disclosures. Such protections may extend to family members of the whistleblower or witness and can even involve participation in a witness protection programme, including assignment of a new identity and relocation, in extreme circumstances. As long as there is reason to believe the safety of these individuals is at risk, they are entitled to protection under the Act.

Additionally, Section 57 of the Witness Protection Act prohibits both the disclosure of the identity of a witness or whistleblower and the disclosure of the information they shared. If these provisions are violated, the Act provides for strict sanctions against the violators in the form of a fine not exceeding 100,000 Namibian dollars (about 5,415 USD), imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, or both.

Although these acts create a good foundation for protecting whistleblowers, the reality is that the laws have yet to have a real impact. While the two acts were passed in 2017, the Witness Protection Act was only implemented in 2023, and the Whistleblower Protection Act has yet to be implemented. Even though the Witness Protection Act has been operationalised, the Witness Protection Programme does not yet exist. As such, whilst it is laudable that legislation is in place to protect the sanctity of the disclosure, the sanctions for retaliators are only formulaic, given that the mechanism to protect whistleblowers, the Witness Protection Programme, is non-existent at this stage.

It is also unclear who became director of the Witness Protection Unit, the group tasked with implementing the Witness Protection Act, when the initial acting director’s term ended in March 2024, and the reason behind their delay or why, now that it has begun, it is only partial. It may be that part of the issue is funding, since, in 2020, Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab stated Namibia would need at least R160 million Namibian dollars (approximately 8 million USD) to implement a witness-protection programme. There also appears to be an unwillingness on the part of the Ministry of Justice to divert the funds necessary to staff the Witness Protection Agency. The millions of estimated Namibian dollars needed to fund the agency are dwarfed by the billions of dollars lost in the FishRot scandal, and the implicated role players have yet to legally account for their participation in the scheme, to avert the risk of exposing how deep the rot of corruption runs.

Weaknesses And Possible Reforms

Not only is slow implementation of these Acts an issue, but there are several concerns with the acts as they are written.

The existing laws punish false reporting too severely, under the pretext of discouraging false reporting that would lead to a waste of resources and jeopardise legitimate investigations. Under existing whistleblower protection law, anyone found guilty of intentionally making a false report is liable to pay a fine of up to 100,000 Namibian dollars and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 20 years. Conversely, the sanctions imposed on people who exact retaliation against whistleblowers are significantly less severe, with a fine of up to 15,000 Namibian dollars (about 812 USD) and/or imprisonment not exceeding 15 years. Such a severe punishment for making a false report has a deterring, chilling effect on whistleblowers who may feel that their disclosures could be considered false and therefore expose them to criminal liability.

Another possible concern is that whistleblower disclosures must be vetted through the Commissioner or the investigators in the Whistleblower Protection Office. The spectre of possible undue influence being exerted from within the Whistleblower Protection Office remains a possibility as the Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister. In such circumstances, there is a high probability that the Prime Minister may exercise the discretionary power to limit the scope of the investigations, citing national security and public safety concerns. These concerns are well-founded, especially in Namibia, where the dominant political party has held sway for the past 40 years, so exposure of corruption would likely implicate politically influential persons affiliated with SWAPO. This raises a concern about the possible intimidation of reporters of corruption, which is a particular concern in matters where politically influential persons are implicated in corruption or suspected corruption.

In many countries, once a disclosure is made, the discretion to investigate is vested in individuals who may be politically allied with parties under investigation. In Namibia, this is a particularly major concern given that the Whistleblower Protection Office is located within the ambit of the Prime Minister’s office.There are also concerns about the Supreme Court’s discretionary power to make public the identity of whistleblowers if, in the court’s opinion, the interests of justice call for such public disclosure. In the context of the above, the framework of supporting legislation, such as the Anti-Corruption Act No. 8 of 2003, and specifically the provisions of section 52 thereof, may need to be revisited to ensure the safety of whistleblowers. As far as reforms, the priority needs to be implementing the existing laws, particularly the Whistleblower Protection Act, including the creation of the Whistleblower Protection Office.

Secrecy Laws

Namibia recognises a right to privacy as a fundamental human right in its Constitution. Under Article 13, all persons have a right to privacy in their homes and communications. However, this right to privacy has limitations as required by law and when it comes to certain top-priority interests. These include protecting national security and public safety; protecting the nation’s economy; protecting the rights and freedoms of others; and preventing disorder and crime. For example, the right to privacy is somewhat limited by the Financial Intelligence Act, which includes a provision for financial institutions to undertake customer due diligence.

Apart from the constitutional right to privacy, Namibia has not enacted any data privacy laws. There is a draft Data Protection Bill in the early legislative stages, however there is no indication of if and when it may be passed.

As far as other secrecy laws, the Protection of Information Act, No.84 of 1982 (PIA) regulates how information is to be disseminated in the public domain. The PIA outlaws the possession and disclosure of information that is unlawfully obtained. However, the Namibian courts appear loath to enforce the PIA’s provisions in instances where the law is being used to shield corrupt practices, such as in 2018 when the Director-General of the Namibian Central Intelligence Services (NCIS) sought to prevent the Patriot Newspaper’s publication of corruption involving former members of the NCIS and the court ruled against him. The court again demonstrated its reticence in enforcing the PIA in circumstances involving corruption during the 2019 “Fishrot” scandal, an incident where multiple prominent politicians and businessmen were accused of participating in an elaborate scheme that brought personal financial gains while harming the national fishing industry.

The Fishrot scandal (discussed further below under “Whistleblower Cases”) shook the country and, as a direct result, led to Namibia’s Parliament passing the Access to Information Act, 2022 (ATIA). The ATIA provides for “the right of access to information held by public and private entities.” The goal is for this access to help facilitate accountability, transparency, and good governance. It provides for the appointment of an independent and impartial Information Commissioner by Namibia’s president. The commissioner’s powers will include being able to enter and search any premises and to demand the production of information. The ATIA also requires that public entities each appoint a designated information officer who will grant or refuse information requests, among other tasks.

Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Access to Information Act has not yet taken effect, but it is in the process of being implemented. The Ministry of Information said the Office of the Access to Information Commissioner would be set up by the end of 2024, but this did not occur. However, Namibia’s parliament did pass regulations about the appointment of the Commissioner and a deputy, so some progress was made. Once the appointment process takes place, other elements of the Act will hopefully become operational, though there may again be delays if they need regulations to be approved before they can be implemented.

Freedom of Information and Freedom of the Media

Namibia is historically one of Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) best-ranked African countries in its World Press Freedom Index. Although still high on the list, Namibia’s score dropped recently. While in 2023, Namibia was ranked 22nd out of 180 countries, in 2024, its ranking dropped to 34th.

The courts in Namibia have developed a jurisprudence that is conscious of the country’s repressive past. They are seeking to develop, entrench, and safeguard the freedoms set out in the Constitution through their judgments. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally enshrined right under Article 21(1)(a) of the Namibian Constitution, which states as follows: “All persons shall have the right to freedom of expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media”.

Despite the progressive stance of the superior courts, the executive has not displayed the same enlightened view towards media and media rights, overtly showing disdain for the press. During the 2019 election campaign, an official in the national government referred to journalists as “flies” poisoning the population when members of the media were critical of how the Namibian authorities had initially handled the Fishrot debacle and exposed the involvement of high-level government officials and members of the governing party complicit in that corruption scheme. These types of verbal attacks against journalists by members of the government are not uncommon, but fortunately, journalists in Namibia are rarely exposed to severe threats or danger.

Beyond these critical views, there are also concerns when it comes to Namibia’s protection of sources. Provisions for the protection of sources are lacking even in the laws that are not yet implemented. This is a concern when it comes to the protection of whistleblowers who may want to approach the media to amplify their stories.

Compliance With International Standards

It appears that over the last two decades, Namibia has sought to maintain internationally acceptable standards when it comes to corruption. The country has worked to implement strategies aimed at curbing the threats posed by institutional corruption, specifically in the area of state functionaries, and has, to some extent, corralled the influence of private entity corruption. This is significant in a society with single-party dominance, in the form of SWAPO, which has significant reach and influence in how reporting agencies, and ultimately investigating organs, conduct enquiries into possible cases of corruption, fraud, and money laundering.

One of the most significant ways Namibia has curbed the influence of private entity corruption is through its reporting requirements on beneficial ownership. Beneficial ownership, in its simplest description, refers to anyone who enjoys the benefits of ownership of a security or property without being on record as the owner. It appears then that the beneficial owner is a natural person who, directly or indirectly, exercises substantial control over, or has a substantial economic interest in, or receives a substantial economic benefit from a company.

Companies are very often used to channel benefits to hidden beneficial owners, and, very often, these owners are “politically exposed persons” (PEPs). A PEP is someone who, through their prominent position or influence, is more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption.

Whistleblower Cases

The ongoing Fishrot criminal case involving SAMHERJI Fishing, an Icelandic fishing company, and a former cabinet minister and director of Investec, Namibia, where the parties were charged with collusion on fishing quotas and money-laundering, is the most high-profile whistleblower case in Namibia. The case is an indication of the positive efforts being undertaken by investigating agencies, and the efficacy of the whistleblowing apparatus in exposing corruption by politically influential individuals and entities. International civil society organisations like PPLAAF were instrumental in providing legal assistance to the Fishrot whistleblowers and adding impetus to the exposure of this graft scheme, which was unlawfully plundering Namibia’s natural resources through the aid of corrupt state officials and private sector collusion.

Of course, the slow pace of resolving this scandal – one that first came to broad public attention in 2019 – is an indication of how far Namibia still has to come in effectively addressing whistleblower disclosures.

Another major instance of whistleblowing, which has been ongoing since 2021, relates to dangerous mining practices in Uis. Residents and former employees have been accusing the United Kingdom company Andrada Mining, which operates a tin mine in Uis, of creating major health hazards for both employees and locals. Air pollution, noise pollution, and underground vibrations caused by the mine have all created major dangers for residents. Some individuals even complain that they developed asthma, tuberculosis, and other respiratory illnesses as a result of the dust pollution. Others say the vibrations have caused cracks in their houses. While there are no legal proceedings tied to this case yet – and while the company continues to deny all allegations that their practices are creating health hazards – in late 2024, individuals were still coming forward with stories of harm caused by the mine.

It should be stressed that the challenge for a developing country like Namibia is ultimately the willingness of state agencies to enforce the legislation, and the ability and willingness of the Namibian courts, under the Namibian Constitution and the other legislation referred to herein, to give expression to the rights of whistleblowers to report corruption without fear of reprisal, and, where necessary, to enforce the protections set out in the Namibian Whistleblower Protection Act and other laws. For the law to be effective, public knowledge of the benefits of a robust whistleblowing culture needs to be increased. There must be roadshows, public awareness campaigns in both print and digital media platforms, and regular community town meetings where the role of whistleblowers is emphasised in rooting out corrupt practices and ensuring the achievement of the developmental goals at local, regional, and national levels in Namibia. For now, the key next step for strengthening whistleblower protections in Namibia is the implementation of the laws that are already on the books, but have yet to take effect.

Knowledge, support and action centers

Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

The Institute for Public Policy Research is a non-profit organisation founded in 2001 to research the social, political, and economic issues that impact development in Namibia. It also focuses on the impact of corruption and measures to combat the destabilising effects thereof on the growth and economic stability of Namibia. The IPPR defines itself as being independent of government, political parties, commercial interests, and other interest groups and presents itself as being an instrument for the promotion of a free and transparent governance system in Namibia unhampered by corruption.

Address: Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) House of Democracy, 70-72 Frans Indongo Street, Windhoek
Tel: +264 61 240514
Fax: +264 61 240516
Email: info@ippr.org.na

Office of the Ombusdman

The Ombudsman is an independent and impartial public office bearer who raises all people’s concerns with government institutions, bodies, and civil servants as well as any company or private individuals in Namibia, when it relates to violation of human rights and protection of the environment in Namibia.

General Contact Information:
Website: https://ombudsman.org.na/ or you can lodge a complaint through the website here: https://ombudsman.org.na/lodge-a-complaint/
Tel: +264 61 207 3111
SMS: 20401, SMS is charged at 40 cents an SMS
Email:office@ombudsman.org.na