By Silas Mwaudasheni Nande
Namibia’s independence in 1990 marked a pivotal moment in the nation’s quest for justice, equity, and inclusive development. Among the transformative tools envisioned was Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), a policy framework designed to redress historical exclusion and promote the participation of previously disadvantaged Namibians—particularly Black citizens—in the mainstream economy. BEE was not merely an economic instrument; it was a moral imperative rooted in the promise of dignity and restitution.
Yet, more than three decades later, the implementation of BEE in the public service sector has revealed troubling contradictions. While the policy’s intent remains noble, its execution has been marred by inefficiency, political patronage, and technical shortcomings. Numerous public projects awarded under BEE principles have failed to meet basic standards of delivery, often collapsing midstream or producing substandard outcomes. This has led to a growing perception that empowerment, as currently practiced, compromises service quality and public trust.
The Promise of BEE: Policy Intentions and Frameworks
Namibia’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) framework draws conceptual and ideological inspiration from South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation agenda, particularly its Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) model. Like its southern neighbor, Namibia recognized that political liberation without economic redress would entrench inequality and undermine the promise of independence. Thus, BEE emerged as a policy vehicle to promote inclusive participation in the economy, rectify historical injustices, and foster a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity.
However, while the philosophical underpinnings of Namibia’s BEE mirror South Africa’s, the implementation has evolved with distinct nuances shaped by Namibia’s demographic composition, political culture, and institutional capacity. Unlike South Africa’s legislated BBBEE Act and accompanying scorecard system, Namibia’s approach remains largely aspirational and discretionary. The centerpiece of this framework—the New Equitable Economic Empowerment Framework (NEEEF)—was introduced in 2011 to consolidate empowerment efforts across four key pillars: ownership, management control, skills development, and preferential procurement.
NEEEF was envisioned as a transformative blueprint to guide both public and private sector compliance with empowerment objectives. It proposed measurable targets, compliance incentives, and a national scorecard to assess progress. Yet, despite its strategic importance, NEEEF has never been enacted into law. Over a decade later, it remains a draft framework without legal teeth, binding obligations, or institutional enforcement mechanisms.
This legislative vacuum has left NEEEF in a state of policy limbo—ambitious in rhetoric but weak in execution. Ministries and agencies interpret its provisions inconsistently, and compliance is often voluntary or politically motivated. Without statutory authority, there is no standardized mechanism to verify BEE credentials, audit performance, or penalize non-compliance. This has opened the door to widespread fronting, where nominal Black ownership masks actual control by non-Black entities, and to the politicization of procurement, where tenders are awarded based on affiliations rather than merit.
In effect, the absence of enabling legislation has undermined the credibility and impact of Namibia’s empowerment agenda. It has created a fragmented landscape where empowerment is invoked but rarely institutionalized—where the goals of inclusion are proclaimed but not structurally pursued. For BEE to fulfill its transformative promise, Namibia must move beyond symbolic frameworks and toward enforceable, transparent, and merit-based systems that balance redress with delivery.
Key Pillars of BEE
- Ownership: Intended to shift economic control to Black Namibians, especially in sectors reliant on public contracts. However, ownership often remains nominal, with real control retained by non-Black entities through fronting arrangements.
- Management Control: Aimed at increasing Black representation in executive roles. In practice, many firms appoint figurehead directors without decision-making authority.
- Skills Development: Envisioned as a cornerstone of empowerment, yet underfunded and inconsistently applied. Many BEE firms lack structured training programs.
- Preferential Procurement: The most visible pillar, used to award government tenders to BEE-compliant firms. Unfortunately, it has become a conduit for political favoritism and underperformance.
Without a binding legal framework, BEE remains vulnerable to manipulation. Compliance is often superficial, and enforcement mechanisms are weak or nonexistent.
Systemic Failures in Public Service Delivery
The public service sector has become a litmus test for BEE’s effectiveness. Numerous projects awarded to BEE firms have failed to meet basic standards, resulting in wasted resources and unmet community needs.
1. Roads Authority Contracts
In regions such as Ohangwena and Omusati, rural road projects awarded to BEE firms have been plagued by delays, poor planning, and financial mismanagement. Contractors often lack the equipment and expertise to execute large-scale infrastructure projects. In some cases, roads were left incomplete, becoming hazardous during rainy seasons and impeding access to schools, clinics, and markets.
The Roads Authority has had to reassign contracts to more experienced firms, leading to duplication of costs and extended timelines. These failures not only undermine development but also erode public confidence in empowerment policies.
2. School and Hostel Construction
Education infrastructure has suffered significantly under poorly executed BEE contracts. In Kavango East, a contractor abandoned a hostel project midway, citing cash flow issues. Learners were forced to sleep in overcrowded classrooms, compromising both safety and learning outcomes. Similar incidents in Kunene and Zambezi have exposed structural defects, lack of supervision, and non-compliance with building codes.
These failures disproportionately affect rural learners, deepening educational inequality and undermining the credibility of government interventions.
3. Health Infrastructure
Clinics built under BEE contracts in Otjozondjupa and Omaheke have been delivered without essential utilities, rendering them non-operational. In one case, a clinic was inaugurated with political fanfare but remained closed for over a year due to missing equipment and staff housing. Such outcomes reflect a disconnect between procurement decisions and community needs.
The human cost is profound—patients are denied timely care, and health workers operate in unsafe or ill-equipped environments.
Root Causes
- Fronting and Political Patronage: Many BEE firms are politically connected but lack technical capacity. Contracts are awarded based on affiliations rather than merit, undermining the principle of empowerment.
- Lack of Oversight: Ministries and local authorities often fail to monitor project progress. Site visits are rare, and reporting mechanisms are weak.
- Limited Skills and Experience: Some BEE firms lack qualified engineers, project managers, and financial controls. Without mentorship or joint ventures, capacity remains stagnant.
Comparative Performance: White and Chinese Contractors
The contrast between BEE firms and their white-owned or Chinese counterparts is stark. While BEE firms struggle with delivery, other contractors often demonstrate superior performance.
Chinese Contractors
Chinese firms such as China Jiangxi and China Henan have built a reputation for efficiency and technical excellence. Their projects include:
- Windhoek-Okahandja Dual Carriageway: Completed ahead of schedule with high engineering standards.
- Oshakati State Hospital Expansion: Delivered with modern facilities and minimal cost overruns.
- Water Reticulation Projects: In remote areas of Ohangwena, Kunene and Erongo, Chinese firms have installed durable systems that continue to serve communities reliably.
These firms benefit from centralized planning, access to capital, and strong internal oversight.
White-Owned Firms
Namibian firms with white ownership, such as Nexus Group and Murray & Roberts (Namibia), have consistently delivered quality infrastructure. Their projects include:
- University of Namibia Campuses: Built with full amenities and structural integrity.
- Airport Upgrades: Renovations at Hosea Kutako International Airport were completed efficiently and within budget.
These firms often have decades of experience, robust project management systems, and a culture of accountability.
Comparative Analysis
| Metric | BEE Firms | White-Owned Firms | Chinese Firms |
| Project Timeliness | Frequently delayed | Generally on time | Often ahead of schedule |
| Quality of Work | Inconsistent | High | High |
| Cost Overruns | Common | Moderate | Rare |
| Technical Capacity | Limited | Strong | Strong |
| Accountability | Weak | Moderate | High (due to state ties) |
Sources: Field reports, ministry audits, and contractor performance reviews.
Structural and Governance Challenges
The failures of BEE are not isolated—they reflect deeper governance deficits as follow:
1. Weak Oversight
Government agencies often lack the capacity or will to monitor BEE projects. Site inspections are sporadic, and progress reports are either falsified or ignored. This creates a permissive environment for underperformance.
2. Political Interference
Tender boards and procurement committees are susceptible to political pressure. Contracts are awarded to allies, and whistleblowers face retaliation. This undermines meritocracy and institutional integrity.
3. Lack of Skills Transfer
BEE partnerships rarely include mentorship or joint ventures with experienced firms. As a result, technical skills are not transferred, and capacity remains stagnant. Empowerment becomes symbolic rather than developmental.
4. Absence of Performance Audits
There is no standardized mechanism to evaluate contractor performance post-delivery. Failed projects are quietly buried, and the same firms reappear in future tenders. This perpetuates a cycle of mediocrity.
The Human Cost: Impact on Citizens and Public Trust
The consequences of BEE failures are borne by ordinary Namibians:
- Learners: Incomplete schools and hostels compromise education and safety.
- Patients: Clinics without equipment or staff delay critical care.
- Communities: Abandoned roads and water projects isolate rural populations.
Beyond physical infrastructure, these failures erode public trust. Citizens perceive tenders as corrupt, and the promise of empowerment rings hollow when services collapse. This disillusionment threatens democratic legitimacy and social cohesion.
Toward a More Accountable Empowerment Model
To salvage the goals of BEE and restore faith in public service delivery, Namibia must reform its approach.
1. Skills-Based Empowerment
Empowerment should prioritize technical competence, not just ownership. Firms must demonstrate capacity before being awarded contracts. Certification, track records, and independent assessments should guide procurement decisions.
2. Transparent Tendering
Procurement processes must be open, with public access to bid evaluations, contractor histories, and project milestones. Digital platforms can enhance transparency and reduce manipulation.
3. Post-Award Monitoring
Government must conduct regular site inspections, enforce penalties for non-performance, and publish delivery scorecards. Community feedback should be integrated into monitoring frameworks.
4. Mandatory Joint Ventures
BEE firms should be required to partner with experienced contractors for large projects. This ensures mentorship, quality assurance, and skills transfer. Joint ventures should be audited for genuine collaboration.
5. Community Oversight
Local communities should have representation in monitoring committees. Their insights can ensure that projects serve intended beneficiaries and reflect local priorities.
Conclusion
Namibia’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy was born from a profound vision—one rooted in justice, restitution, and the inclusive reimagining of a society long fractured by colonial dispossession and apartheid exclusion. It sought to correct historical imbalances by opening doors to economic participation for those who had been systematically denied access to capital, opportunity, and decision-making power. At its core, BEE was not merely a policy instrument; it was a promise—a national commitment to uplift, empower, and restore dignity to the majority of Namibians.
Yet, in the realm of public service delivery, this vision has too often been betrayed. Instead of catalyzing excellence and transformation, BEE has in many instances devolved into a mechanism for underperformance, political patronage, and public disillusionment. Projects awarded under the banner of empowerment have stalled, collapsed, or delivered substandard outcomes—leaving communities underserved and the credibility of the state diminished. The very people BEE was meant to uplift are now the ones bearing the brunt of its failures: learners without classrooms, patients without clinics, and citizens without roads or water.
The contrast with white-owned and Chinese contractors—who frequently deliver projects on time, within budget, and to high technical standards—is not an indictment of empowerment itself. Rather, it is a mirror reflecting the urgent need for reform. It reveals that empowerment, when stripped of accountability and competence, becomes a hollow gesture. It reminds us that transformation without delivery is not justice—it is deferred hope.
Empowerment must therefore be redefined—not as a handout or entitlement, but as a structured, merit-based pathway to excellence. It must be anchored in skills, integrity, and performance. True empowerment equips individuals and enterprises to compete, deliver, and lead—not merely to benefit from proximity to power. It demands that we build institutions that reward competence, foster mentorship, and uphold the public interest above all.
Namibia deserves a public service that is not only representative but also responsive, capable, and trustworthy. Its citizens deserve infrastructure that works, services that uplift, and policies that deliver on their promises. The future of empowerment lies not in abandoning its ideals, but in reclaiming them—through reform, transparency, and a renewed commitment to excellence. Only then can BEE fulfill its original purpose: to be a bridge from exclusion to opportunity, from symbolic inclusion to substantive transformation.
