Let’s Elevate the SONA: Debate First, Presidential Reply Late

On the 8th of April, the leader of the 8th Administration and President of the Republic of Namibia delivered her second State of the Nation Address.

The speech was impressive in its presentation, rich in ambition, and reflected a leadership intent to communicate openly with the nation.

The President also showed humility and composure when responding to questions asked by political party leaders in the National Assembly, an approach that deserves recognition in an era where confrontation often replaces dialogue.

But even with these strengths, we must confront a growing reality: the current format of delivering a SONA followed immediately by a short Q&A session no longer meets the democratic depth and constitutional seriousness that the moment demands.

Namibia has outgrown this format, and our people deserve much more than quick, time-strapped exchanges.

The State of the Nation Address is not meant to be a brief interaction between the President and a small group of political leaders.

It is a constitutional forum through which the President speaks to the nation through its elected representatives. Article 32(3)(f) of the Namibian Constitution empowers the President to address the National Assembly, while Article 32(5) underscores her accountability to that same Assembly.

Furthermore, Article 44 reinforces that Parliament carries the primary responsibility of oversight, interrogation, and legislative direction.

A serious reading of these provisions makes it clear: the SONA is designed to be studied, debated, and contested, not minimised into a few minutes of questions that barely scratch the surface of national priorities. Parliament’s Standing Rules and Orders, particularly Rule 101 and related rules, further empower MPs to debate major statements and invite the President to return later to respond comprehensively.

In essence, the foundation for a deeper, richer SONA process already exists; only political will is missing.

And this is not merely an academic argument.

Namibian political analysts themselves are observing the cracks. Political analyst Ndumba J Kamwanyah, writing on his Facebook page, captured the public mood clearly when he wrote:

“SONA matter: I think she did a good job in almost answering all the questions posed to her. And she was very humble rather than confrontational.

But there were gaps in her speech and answers regarding policy direction and the concrete implementation of concrete proposals, especially in employment creation and land and housing. At this pace, I also don’t think Vision 2030 is achievable, unless there's divine intervention.

The same can also be said about the quality of questions asked and issues raised by some of the opposition members.

Clarity and direction

They lack research and depth.This is not an attack on the President. It is an honest reflection on the current format's limitations, which prevent both the President and Parliament from engaging the nation meaningfully.

If political analysts can already identify gaps in depth, clarity, and direction, it means the SONA process must evolve.

Former Member of Parliament and Businessman Nico Kaiyamo asked the right question when he wrote:

“In the unusual business mantra of the 8th Administration, can the SONA be debated by Members of Parliament instead of Q&A? The President will then reply to the issues raised afterwards.

Please, let us debate because trying to be politically correct is for opportunists.”

This is not only a suggestion; it is a challenge to Parliament and the Executive to recognise that democracy must be strengthened in substance, not performance.

The 8th Administration has consistently branded itself as bold, as willing to do things differently, and as eager to break old political habits. This is the perfect moment to prove it.

If Namibia is serious about elevating democratic accountability, it must adopt a fuller, deeper approach to the SONA that mirrors the practices of mature democracies.

South Africa, for instance, does not rush through its SONA. After the President delivers the speech, Members of Parliament debate it over two full days. Every party participates.

Every MP has the opportunity to weigh in. The debate becomes a national moment filled with ideas, criticism, policy alternatives, and facts.

It draws citizens into the political sphere because they know their leaders are engaging in a meaningful national conversation.

And once all contributions are made, the President returns to deliver a comprehensive reply that addresses the issues raised, clarifies policies, acknowledges gaps, and reinforces national priorities.

This process gives the SONA weight, legitimacy, and political value.

Namibia loses all of that by relying solely on a Q&A format that restricts engagement to a few political leaders under severe time pressure.

Complex issues like employment creation, inflation, land reform, youth empowerment, energy security, Vision 2030, and industrialisation cannot be interrogated through four questions per leader.

The nation cannot understand the direction of policy. Analysts cannot evaluate progress. Citizens cannot follow the logic of how the Administration intends to convert promises into implementation.

And MPs cannot meaningfully guide, correct, or pressure the Executive. A Q&A session is not a debate. It is not oversight. It is not a national dialogue. It is a procedural performance that leaves the country hungry for more.

Important issues

Namibians deserve a SONA that captures the nation’s imagination and stimulates a national conversation.

They deserve a parliamentary process where MPs raise deeply researched issues, critique questionable assumptions, celebrate genuine successes, and challenge the Executive on weak areas of implementation.

They deserve the kind of political engagement that makes them want to switch on their televisions, radios, and phones to listen, not the kind that leaves them wondering whether important issues were ignored due to time constraints.

Vision 2030 is still alive, but it requires a level of national seriousness that goes beyond polite applause. Four years is a long time in politics.

With strong institutional engagement, much can be corrected, accelerated, and saved. But that requires Parliament to reclaim its oversight power and the President to engage more deeply with the nation’s concerns.

A fully debated SONA is not just a procedural shift; it is a democratic necessity.

Namibia is at a political crossroads. Our citizens are asking harder questions. Our analysts are raising sharper concerns. Our young people are demanding clearer direction.

If democracy is to thrive, then we must adjust our institutions to match the moment. Transforming the SONA into a full parliamentary debate, followed by a presidential response, is an important step toward strengthening accountability, deepening national dialogue, and aligning our governance processes with the ambitions of our Constitution.

This opinion is written by Hidipo Hamata, writing from Omafo – Helao Nafidi Town, in his own capacity.