When then-presidential hopeful Hage Geingob and then-Law Reform and Development Commission chairperson, Sacky Shangala, bulldozed through constitutional amendments in 2014, they were warned their plans were unsustainable, unnecessary, undemocratic and expensive. Ignoring caution, the then Attorney General and Presidential Affairs Minister, Albert Kawana, tabled and motivated the sprawling Constitutional Amendment Bill at the end of July 2014 after previously denying the amendments existed.
The Third Constitutional Amendments increased the size of the National Assembly from 72 to 96 elected members (plus eight non-voting members appointed by the president) and the National Council from 26 to 42 members (three per region up from two, reflecting the increase to 14 regions).
They also introduced the position of Vice President, appointed by the President, and expanded executive powers, including the President’s ability to appoint regional governors directly. The amendments resulted in a bloated parliament costing taxpayers more, being less productive, concentrating power in the hands of a few, and only serving the ruling party and its unending list of comrades whose time it is to “eat”.
In retrospect, reactions from politicians and analysts hint at glaring flaws around these amendments and how they’ve since weakened the agency of the masses where governance is concerned.
The Affirmative Repositioning movement, which launched a youth-focused social justice campaign in 2014, viewed the amendments as compromising fundamental democratic principles of popular sovereignty. “Namibia is now a case study in how constitutional engineering can create an unaccountable political hierarchy,” said AR MP elect, George Kambala.
He stresses the status quo poses a constitutional crisis, as the country now has leaders who were neither elected by the people nor scrutinised in an open contest, yet wield executive power. “A President should derive legitimacy from the ballot, not from boardroom deals,” Kambala reiterated.
AR is adamant that the fact that the Vice President is appointed by one person, after the election, and in the current reality, assumed the highest office in the country without facing electoral scrutiny, diminished good governance.
“No feasibility studies were conducted to assess how this enlargement would benefit the country or whether it was cost-effective. Likewise, no comparative analysis was undertaken to determine an appropriate parliamentary size for a country of Namibia’s population and economic capacity,” said Graham Hopwood, executive director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), about the controversial amendments.
Veteran journalist Gwen Lister, a staunch critic of the amendments at the time, said the majority of the 2014 constitutional amendments didn’t make sense then, and they don’t now.
“We managed quite happily without a VP before 2014,” said Hopwood, who further suggested the creation of the VP position should have been the subject of meaningful public consultation. It’s also hard to see the value of the post a decade on.”
John Nakuta, a social justice academic, refutes that a constitutional crisis had emerged but agrees amendments eroded answerability. He argues in a democracy, leaders typically derive legitimacy from popular vote, and the Vice President’s appointment by the President bypasses this, raising questions about accountability to the public.
“No formal constitutional crisis has emerged, as the succession followed Article 34 of the Namibian Constitution, which mandates the Vice President to serve out the remainder of the term.”
Nakuta says the mechanism is legally sound; however, it has sparked a political crisis of legitimacy. He outlines how public and opposition discontent suggests unease with a system where a non-elected official can assume such power, especially amid broader concerns about executive overreach.
“This reality underscores a tension between constitutional design and democratic ideals, but it hasn’t yet destabilised the system to the point of a crisis—though it may fuel calls for reform,” Nakuta cautions.
Hastily arranged ‘public consultations’ were held only after civil society organisations protested the lack of public input and the speed as well as timing, a month before the 2014 elections, with the bill already before parliament, exposing the shambolic attempts by Geingob and Shangala.
Shanghala is now awaiting trial for his role in the industrial-sized theft of millions of dollars in a scheme that unsettled and disrupted the fishing sector, leading to the closure of companies and hundreds of job losses. The scam also diminished the ruling Swapo government’s credibility due to receiving millions for its election campaign.
Shanghala, upon being provided the right of reply, refused to participate in an interview that sought to gauge his views on the impact of these amendments and his role in the dilemma.
Another prime beneficiary of the creation of the VP portfolio,
Nangolo Mbumba, after being appointed in that role following the death of the first occupant, Nicky Iyambo, in 2018, further ascended to the highest office by succeeding Hage Geingob in February 2024, when the latter died in office.
Attempts to hear views from that office regarding these amendments were met with a “dear colleague, no comment” by press secretary in the Presidency, Alfredo Hengari, after sitting on questions for a week.
COUNTING THE COST
The Affirmative Repositioning movement, which won six seats in the National Assembly in November’s chaotic elections, labelled the amendments a textbook example of how the ruling elite manipulates governance structures to serve their own interests at the expense of the people.
The youthful leftist movement said the amendments were engineered not to advance the democratic project but to entrench a “gerontocratic elite that was running out of political lifelines.” The expansion of parliament and the executive has deepened state inefficiency and facilitated patronage, they said.
“This was a Swapo survival strategy, not a democratic reform,” said Kambala.
This expanded parliament has come with not just increased expenditure because of the bloated numbers of MPs but every seat now costs the taxpayer more.
The National Assembly in 2013 requested N$122 820 000 for legislative management, coordination and support services, and funding of political parties rose from N$23.4 million to N$28.2 million that year.
In the 2016/2017 financial year, funding of political parties, the last time through the National Assembly, was allocated N$79 million. Allocation to political parties, now through the finance minister, was set at N$116 million for 2019/20 and N$119 million for 2020/21, N$123 million for 2021/22, N$103.9 million in 2022/23, and N$149.5 million in 2023/24.
At the same time, the expanded houses of parliament presided over a significant explosion of national debt. The central government’s debt was estimated at N$28.3 billion in 2012/13, or 27.7% of GDP.
In his 2024/2025 budget speech, finance minister Iipumbu Shiimi reported that the government’s total debt stock stood at N$151.3 billion, equivalent to 61.3% of GDP.
But the amendments didn’t just hurt the taxpayer’s pocket; they had a profound impact on Namibia’s fledgling democracy. In fact, they are a classic example of how constitutional manipulation can create an unaccountable political hierarchy.
“The amendments bolstered presidential authority, notably through the appointment of the Vice President, governors, and additional parliamentarians. This reduced the National Council’s ability to review certain bills, weakening legislative oversight,” said John Nakuta.
BUT WHY?
Commentators agree that the hastily arranged amendments reeked of political overreach as they entrenched elite rule instead of fostering real representation.
AR calls the amendments a political pension scheme aimed at promoting an age-based political pecking order.
“Instead of embracing generational change and opening up the democratic space, the ruling party created more positions to absorb its ageing cadre. The result? A bloated and inefficient parliament that consumes resources but delivers nothing.
Nakuta, however, sees a silver lining in the expansion, albeit with grimmer consequences in the seams. “Overall, while the amendments achieved some representational goals, they tilted the balance toward executive power, prompting debates about their long-term impact on Namibia’s democracy,” said Nakuta.
Geingob’s own assessment of the performance of MPs was increasingly critical, telling an October 2021 Swapo central committee meeting that parliament is controlled by opposition parties. “You are being humiliated,” he said while also berating party members for having “weak hearts,” walking like they are dead, and appearing “finished”.
PRODUCTIVITY: WHEN MORE IS NOT MORE
Despite the consistent marked increase in expenditure, productivity has not increased at all.
In 2012 the Namibian parliament passed a total of 20 bills, amendments, updates and revisions across various sectors, such as education, agriculture, finance, and social security. In 2013, it was a total of 13; 16 in 2014; 12 in 2015; and 11 in 2016.
Parliament’s Annual Report states that during the 2019/20 reporting period, 15 bills were tabled in the National Assembly. Of these, nine bills were passed without amendment, and five passed with amendments after extensive debate. One bill was withdrawn after being tabled, while five bills were reconsidered after having been approved by the National Council.
Twenty bills were tabled in the National Assembly, and 16 were passed without amendments after extensive debates. Three bills were withdrawn after being tabled, while one was reconsidered from the National Council in 2021.
In 2022 the Namibian parliament passed a total of 12 bills and amendments covering finance, education, labour, agriculture, and environmental management.
A total of 12 was passed in 2023, and in 2024 the parliament passed four new bills and eight amendments for a total of 12.
But it isn’t just on the floor of the house where productivity falls flat. Administratively, the office of the NA secretary could not provide this reporter with the number of days the NA failed to reach a quorum because of chronic absenteeism. Although a recurring issue in the NA over the years, last year many MPs seemed to have abandoned their parliamentary duties to campaign.
The National Council does not seem to have attendance issues. However, the quality of representation and the woefully unequal gender representation in that house, as well as its inability to evolve from serving as a mere rubber-stamping facility for the NA, should be addressed.
For academic Nakuta, in spite of the countless critical questions these amendments will continue to raise, they’ve also brought more diversity into decision-making.
Increased representation meant enhanced representation, particularly for women, with Namibia achieving 50% female representation in the National Assembly by 2024. This aligns with Swapo’s ‘zebra-style’ policy to promote gender balance, which has been emulated by other parties.
Women make up 50% of the National Assembly, but in the National Council, representation has remained at just over 14%.
But whatever success is argued in favour of the amendments, AR, if ever in the ruling position, has vowed to dismantle the vice presidency altogether, describing it as an unnecessary and undemocratic position. They would also “radically reduce the size of parliament and institute mechanisms for direct democracy, including the right to recall MPs who fail to serve the people.
“The entire governance framework must be restructured to centre the masses, not political elites. Namibia must move away from neoliberal dependency and towards socialist-driven governance, prioritising land reform, economic justice, and workers’ rights.
In fact, they say rewriting the constitution “to serve the working class, not the bourgeois politicians who have betrayed the revolution” is a must.
Lister said the larger parliament and creation of a Vice Presidency are luxuries we couldn’t afford then and can afford even less today.
