Immanuel defiant amid legal threat by security company

Labour minister Wise Immanuel has doubled down on his directive in an escalating wage compliance dispute with Bertha Security Services CC, making it clear that government will not be threatened by entities profiting from public tenders while failing to pay their employees.

He was reacting to legal threats from the security firm, which has allegedly failed to pay substantial overtime owed to its security guards stationed at the Walvis Bay municipality.

For Immanuel, the issue goes beyond a single contract.

“Public procurement is not a neutral marketplace, it is a moral instrument of the State,” the minister told Namibian Sun this week.

“The message is unequivocal… public money will not subsidise exploitation,” he added.

The stand-off follows an urgent demand from Bertha Security, whose lawyers accuse the minister of defamation and unlawful interference after Immanuel reportedly instructed the municipality to withhold payments due to the company and instead use the funds to pay workers directly what they are owed.

In a letter dated 27 March, lawyer Samuel Shinedima of Salomon Kanyemba Inc., acting on behalf of the security company, challenged remarks attributed to the minister concerning the company’s alleged non-compliance with the minimum wage.

A Namibian Sun report last week stated that the minister had instructed the Walvis Bay municipality to withhold payments to Bertha Security, which allegedly owes its guards more than N$1.1 million in overtime, and instead pay the employees directly.

Minister is wrong, company says

However, the company denies any wrongdoing, insisting the minister’s statements are “factually incorrect” and have created the impression that it is a “deliberate non-law-abiding entity”.

According to their legal letter, the firm argues that the minister acted without giving it an opportunity to respond to the allegations, describing the process as procedurally unfair and in violation of their right to be heard.

The lawyers further contend that the minister overstepped his legal authority by intervening in what they describe as a contractual and labour dispute that should instead be handled through established legal and statutory mechanisms.

But Immanuel has refused to backtrack, framing the issue as a broader fight for worker dignity and accountability in public procurement.

“It is an unacceptable trend. And we are not going to be apologetic about demanding the protection of workers’ rights to dignity and fair treatment,” he said.

“The message must be loud and clear across all spheres. Any entity, and I mean any, that is not willing to respect workers and give them what is due to them must cease chasing after public tenders.”

State draws a line

At the heart of the dispute is a municipal security contract awarded at N$12 per hour, below the revised minimum wage of N$13.50 introduced in 2025.

While the company insists it acted in good faith by engaging the municipality, consulting workers and seeking exemptions, the minister has signalled that such explanations do not override statutory obligations.

Immanuel pointed to a series of directives issued since 2025 requiring all public entities to ensure that contract rates align with minimum wage laws and that only compliant companies are awarded tenders.

“Compliance is therefore not a once-off declaration; it is a continuous obligation, enforceable throughout the life of the contract,” he added.

Enforcement over appeasement

Despite claims by the company that it has been unfairly targeted and denied due process, the minister indicated that enforcement measures – including withholding payments, deducting unpaid wages or even terminating contracts – remain firmly on the table.

“Whatever the cost, the State must stand firm in defending the dignity of workers,” he said.

The company has demanded a retraction and apology within 48 hours, warning of possible High Court action if the minister does not withdraw his directive for the municipality to withhold funds. It argues that the minister lacks authority to intervene in contractual disputes and that his statements have caused reputational harm.