Free tertiary education that excludes is not free at all
The Namibian Constitution’s Article 20(1) states that all Namibians have the right to education. This right, reinforced by international law, must be upheld, enforced, and promoted by state institutions. Importantly, this duty extends to all Namibians, whether they are enrolled in public or private institutions. Government’s role is to ensure access—through grants, loans, bursaries, or scholarships—without unjustified differentiation.
It is against this backdrop that the administration’s April 24 State of the Nation Address announcement of free tertiary education must be examined, not only as a policy initiative but also as a constitutional question of equality and justice.
A policy that divides instead of unites
At first, the announcement was celebrated as historic. For decades, Namibians have struggled with high tertiary costs, limited loans, and suffocating repayment terms. Free education seemed like a new dawn.
But optimism quickly turned to disappointment when government clarified that the benefit applies only to public institutions—UNAM, NUST, NAMCOL and others—while excluding thousands of students in private universities. This exclusivity divides Namibians into two categories: those deemed “deserving” and those denied, based purely on institutional choice or circumstance. Such selective generosity violates the principle of equality.
Lessons from the past
We have seen rushed education policies before. Free basic education under Presidents Pohamba and Geingob was hailed as a victory, but later criticised as unsustainable and poorly planned. The abrupt curriculum shifts left grade 11 learners stranded.
This new free tertiary education initiative risks repeating those mistakes. It excludes large numbers of students and leaves key questions unanswered: Will it fund only undergraduates, or also postgraduates? Will it cover all fields of study, or only “priority” courses? Without clarity, the policy seems shortsighted.
The role of NSFAF as a forgotten solution
In 2000, President Nujoma enacted the NSFAF Act, recognising that financial support was essential to ensure real access to tertiary education. Both public and private students could apply for repayable loans for accredited courses. The policy was not perfect, but it was inclusive.
Now, government seems poised to dismantle NSFAF without consultation, replacing it with a discriminatory system. Announcing “free” education while crippling the existing loan scheme is a blunder that could haunt the country for years.
Why excluding private students is irrational
Private universities are not elitist havens. Many were established to absorb students who could not secure places at UNAM or NUST. Denying these learners funding is unjust. If a poor rural child cannot get into UNAM and must enrol at IOL, why should they be excluded while a wealthier peer at UNAM benefits?
This selective policy entrenches inequality rather than alleviating it. Education should be the great equalizer - not a divider.
Distributive justice versus distorted priorities
True distributive justice requires resources to be shared fairly to achieve equity. Instead, government is creating a dual system: students at public universities study freely, while private students sink into debt or abandon their studies.
Supporters argue that resources are limited, but this is a false economy. Extending NSFAF support to private students is not unsustainable, and private universities are vital for producing graduates in critical fields like teaching and nursing. The economy values them equally—so should government.
A brewing crisis of trust
Beyond financial exclusion, this policy sends a damaging message: that not all citizens are valued equally. In a country already struggling with unemployment and inequality, this could fuel frustration, disillusionment, and even instability.
Young people, already sceptical, may view such policies as political gimmicks. History teaches us that once youth lose faith in the system, the consequences are unpredictable—and often explosive.
The way forward
Namibia needs sober reflection, not political theatrics. Free tertiary education is a noble goal, but it must be inclusive, sustainable, and carefully designed. Instead of scrapping NSFAF, government should reform and strengthen it. Instead of excluding private students, bursaries and grants should be equitably available to all qualified Namibians.
If implemented inclusively, free tertiary education could transform Namibia. Exclusivity, however, undermines constitutional promises, fuels inequality, and creates resentment.
The government must urgently revisit this policy. It should expand support to private institutions, clarify sustainability, and consult widely with stakeholders. Above all, it must remember that education is a right, not a privilege—and rights are not negotiable.
Namibia’s youth are watching closely. They are listening to every promise and feeling every betrayal. They will not be fooled forever. The question is whether leaders will correct course before frustration boils over, or whether they will persist with gimmicks until it is too late.
* Stephanus Pombili is a Namibian youth, author, independent consultant, researcher, and law student. The opinions expressed here are his own.
It is against this backdrop that the administration’s April 24 State of the Nation Address announcement of free tertiary education must be examined, not only as a policy initiative but also as a constitutional question of equality and justice.
A policy that divides instead of unites
At first, the announcement was celebrated as historic. For decades, Namibians have struggled with high tertiary costs, limited loans, and suffocating repayment terms. Free education seemed like a new dawn.
But optimism quickly turned to disappointment when government clarified that the benefit applies only to public institutions—UNAM, NUST, NAMCOL and others—while excluding thousands of students in private universities. This exclusivity divides Namibians into two categories: those deemed “deserving” and those denied, based purely on institutional choice or circumstance. Such selective generosity violates the principle of equality.
Lessons from the past
We have seen rushed education policies before. Free basic education under Presidents Pohamba and Geingob was hailed as a victory, but later criticised as unsustainable and poorly planned. The abrupt curriculum shifts left grade 11 learners stranded.
This new free tertiary education initiative risks repeating those mistakes. It excludes large numbers of students and leaves key questions unanswered: Will it fund only undergraduates, or also postgraduates? Will it cover all fields of study, or only “priority” courses? Without clarity, the policy seems shortsighted.
The role of NSFAF as a forgotten solution
In 2000, President Nujoma enacted the NSFAF Act, recognising that financial support was essential to ensure real access to tertiary education. Both public and private students could apply for repayable loans for accredited courses. The policy was not perfect, but it was inclusive.
Now, government seems poised to dismantle NSFAF without consultation, replacing it with a discriminatory system. Announcing “free” education while crippling the existing loan scheme is a blunder that could haunt the country for years.
Why excluding private students is irrational
Private universities are not elitist havens. Many were established to absorb students who could not secure places at UNAM or NUST. Denying these learners funding is unjust. If a poor rural child cannot get into UNAM and must enrol at IOL, why should they be excluded while a wealthier peer at UNAM benefits?
This selective policy entrenches inequality rather than alleviating it. Education should be the great equalizer - not a divider.
Distributive justice versus distorted priorities
True distributive justice requires resources to be shared fairly to achieve equity. Instead, government is creating a dual system: students at public universities study freely, while private students sink into debt or abandon their studies.
Supporters argue that resources are limited, but this is a false economy. Extending NSFAF support to private students is not unsustainable, and private universities are vital for producing graduates in critical fields like teaching and nursing. The economy values them equally—so should government.
A brewing crisis of trust
Beyond financial exclusion, this policy sends a damaging message: that not all citizens are valued equally. In a country already struggling with unemployment and inequality, this could fuel frustration, disillusionment, and even instability.
Young people, already sceptical, may view such policies as political gimmicks. History teaches us that once youth lose faith in the system, the consequences are unpredictable—and often explosive.
The way forward
Namibia needs sober reflection, not political theatrics. Free tertiary education is a noble goal, but it must be inclusive, sustainable, and carefully designed. Instead of scrapping NSFAF, government should reform and strengthen it. Instead of excluding private students, bursaries and grants should be equitably available to all qualified Namibians.
If implemented inclusively, free tertiary education could transform Namibia. Exclusivity, however, undermines constitutional promises, fuels inequality, and creates resentment.
The government must urgently revisit this policy. It should expand support to private institutions, clarify sustainability, and consult widely with stakeholders. Above all, it must remember that education is a right, not a privilege—and rights are not negotiable.
Namibia’s youth are watching closely. They are listening to every promise and feeling every betrayal. They will not be fooled forever. The question is whether leaders will correct course before frustration boils over, or whether they will persist with gimmicks until it is too late.
* Stephanus Pombili is a Namibian youth, author, independent consultant, researcher, and law student. The opinions expressed here are his own.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article