Members of parliament are pressing for a formal review of the benefits granted to former presidents after media reports said founding president Sam Nujoma had amassed assets worth more than N$100 million, including a state-funded mansion. The controversy has reopened questions about the scope and oversight of the 2004 Former Presidents’ Pension and Other Benefits Act and about the line between public support and private enrichment.
The 2004 law guarantees former heads of state a pension and a suite of state-funded entitlements: an official residence, staff, travel allowances, security personnel and vehicles. For nearly two decades the arrangements have been presented as a package designed to preserve dignity, guarantee safety and reduce the temptation for sitting presidents to misuse office for personal gain. Yet MPs say the law is now being tested by changing public expectations and by the disclosures surrounding the wealth attributed to Nujoma.
- Advertisement -
Parliamentarians have singled out two recurring concerns. The first is the apparent conversion of official residences and related state-provided property into what amounts to private ownership. MPs say that homes and farms that receive state-funded renovations should not effectively become personal real estate assets. The second is fiscal transparency: lawmakers want to know how much these benefits cost the state, whether they are being applied consistently, and which safeguards exist to prevent misuse.
Critics argue that lavish post‑office perks can fuel public anger when ordinary citizens face service delivery shortfalls and economic hardship. In that sense, the optics matter. A system that appears to funnel state resources into the personal wealth of former leaders risks undermining public trust in democratic institutions and in the integrity of the political class.
Supporters of generous packages counter that they play a preventive role. Some MPs and senior civil servants told colleagues that comprehensive post‑tenure support — especially secure housing and ongoing protection — lowers the incentive for leaders to exploit office for personal enrichment. By guaranteeing a dignified retirement, the argument goes, the state reduces the political and personal risks associated with relinquishing power.
Both positions reflect legitimate governance concerns: the need to ensure security and dignity for ex‑heads of state, and the need to ensure accountability and proper stewardship of public funds. The challenge for lawmakers is to reconcile those aims in a way that is transparent, proportional and defensible to taxpayers.
Practical reforms lawmakers could consider include clearer statutory limits, stronger disclosure requirements, and independent oversight. Any review should separate security needs from discretionary benefits. Protection and vetted security arrangements are a different category from long‑term state financing of residences and personal staff.
- Introduce mandatory public asset declarations for former presidents to clarify the provenance of large holdings and to distinguish private wealth from state-funded assets.
- Clarify the ownership status of state‑funded residences and farms in legislation so that renovations paid for by the public purse do not automatically convert property into private assets.
- Cap nonsecurity benefits or subject them to a sliding scale tied to tenure, cost of living and demonstrable need, to control fiscal exposure while preserving dignity.
- Establish an independent oversight mechanism, such as a parliamentary committee or an auditor general review, to publish regular costings and compliance reports.
Comparative practice in other democracies shows a range of approaches. Almost all provide pensions and some level of security; fewer provide indefinite state‑financed residences, and those that do usually attach explicit ownership and use conditions. A careful review should map Namibia’s current arrangements against international norms without adopting foreign models wholesale.
There is also a legal and constitutional dimension. If legislation or practice has allowed the effective privatization of state assets, courts or clarifying legislation may be necessary to resolve property rights. That could be politically fraught, particularly where revered figures are involved, but lawmakers must weigh deference to legacy against long‑term institutional integrity.
Political calculus will shape the outcome. For the ruling party and opposition alike, the debate will touch on loyalty, historical legacy and electoral sentiment. For the public, however, the salient question is simple: do the benefits granted to former presidents serve the public interest? If they do, they should be transparent, proportionate and defensible. If they do not, they should be reformed.
Resolving that question requires three linked steps: a transparent audit of existing expenditures and assets; a public legislative review that involves civil society and legal experts; and prompt amendments to the 2004 Act that codify limits, disclosure and independent oversight. Absent those measures, the controversy over reported multimillion‑dollar holdings is likely to deepen public skepticism, even as some MPs warn that removing too many safeguards could inadvertently make officeholders more prone to corruption.
At stake is more than the purse strings. The debate is a test of how a young democracy balances respect for its founders with the imperative of accountable governance. Finding a middle way — one that protects dignity and security while ensuring transparency and fiscal responsibility — will demand political courage and technical care.
By News-room Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
