Double appointments could mean double costs

President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s appointment of a new layer of special advisors has put her leadership to an early test and put the taxpayer on the hook.

Article 32 of the Constitution and the Special Advisors and Regional Governors Appointment Act of 1990 give the President broad executive power.

But that power carries a burden: to use it in a way that strengthens accountable institutions, not duplicates them at public expense.

The creation of “shadow advisors” operating in parallel to the Cabinet raises both a constitutional question and a simple budget question: why are Namibians paying twice for the same advice?

The legal framework is clear. Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, is the principal advisory body to the Head of State. It is supported by offices established by law, such as the Attorney-General, the National Planning Commission, and the Governor of the Bank of Namibia, as well as by a civil service of executive directors, directors, and technical staff.

These structures are accountable to Parliament, and their mandates are defined in law, and their salaries are debated in the national budget.

Shadow advisors break that model, because they are not accountable to Parliament and their roles are not defined by statute.

Yet they occupy offices, draw salaries, employ staff, and travel on the taxpayer’s dime. The burden of double appointment is not just governance risk. It is a financial waste of taxpayers' money.

Firstly, the competence and trust. If the President must appoint extra advisors on top of ministers, executive directors, and directors, it signals either incompetence among the principal advisors or a lack of trust in them.

If the issue is competence, remove them and appoint someone capable of carrying the constitutional mandate without shadow advisors.

If the issue is trust, collective Cabinet responsibility collapses. Thus, adding another layer of special advisor on top of the principal advisor does not solve either problem but hides it behind another payroll.

Secondly, a failed succession plan. Many of the new appointments are retirees who have already served and, in some instances, failed.

Hence, their return suggests they did not groom or train successors while in office. Now, instead of stepping aside, they continue to exert influence and draw a salary from the shadows.

Public money

That is not a system renewal, but a blockage of younger technocrats and academics in the public service from advancing, keeping the same small circle of names in control.

Thirdly, weak vetting and integrity. Some appointments have already raised questions about the background. Every questionable appointment is a waste of public money.

It damages public confidence in the State Intelligence Services and the President, who is the appointing authority for the head of intelligence. When vetting fails, accountability goes to the top.

Fourthly, broken promises on cost. President Nandi-Ndaitwah campaigned on “business unusual” and pledged to cut the high cost of government.

In April 2026, she did the opposite by appointing one new minister in the Presidency, seven new deputy ministers, and a fresh batch of special advisors.

The expansion was done behind closed doors and looks like business as usual, as her predecessors did, expanding the Executive without explaining the cost and performance to the public.

Taken together, these appointments risk being seen as “jobs for comrades.” When advisors have no published mandate, when their work overlaps with ministers, and when they are drawn from the same pool of retired officials, the line between governance and patronage disappears.

Article 32 grants the President wide power for a reason: to enable decisive leadership in the public interest. But power without restraint becomes expensive.

Cabinet exists to be scrutinised by Parliament and held to account by the people. Shadow advisors exist outside that system.

The more the President relies on them, the weaker the Cabinet becomes and the more Namibians pay for advice they already funded once in the name of the Cabinet.

This is the burden of a double appointment, not just in constitutional terms, but in dollars and cents. If “business unusual” means anything, it must mean ending the habit of paying twice for the same job.

Otherwise, executive power becomes an expensive echo chamber, and the bill lands on every Namibian taxpayer. Namibia is watching which path the President chooses to restore public confidence.