Petroleum bill debate exposes shallow thinking among many MPs

When Landless People’s Movement (LPM) leader Bernadus Swartbooi rose in parliament to caution against turning petroleum governance into a partisan contest, he drew a clear line between party loyalty and national duty.

The parliament bill tracker shows the amendments would shift certain powers from the minister to the president, assign significant operational authority to a director-general of an Upstream Petroleum Unit within the Office of the President, and reassign the statutory duties of the petroleum commissioner to a deputy director-general in the same unit.

With first oil expected in the next three years, parliament has largely defaulted into familiar patterns, voting for or against the bill along party lines. There is little evidence of a shared, rigorous interrogation of what the law actually changes, why those changes are needed now, or how they would work in practice.

Loyalty vs national duty

MPs are elected to serve the country, not parties.

The Constitution, not manifestos, and the people, not political leaders.

Yet the petroleum debate has again shown how easily that responsibility is eroded when loyalty to party positions overtakes constitutional duty.

Lawmakers who debate issues they do not fully understand, or who speak merely to be noticed ahead of party lists, risk approving legislation that could shape Namibia for generations.

Swartbooi, who entered the debate as a Namibian leader, argued that petroleum governance should remain within established ministerial systems, with the Presidency exercising oversight rather than direct licensing and regulatory power.

“The way we see this is perhaps the president will need to convert this unit into a monitoring and evaluation unit,” Swartbooi told the House.

Swartbooi stands out

Swartbooi's intervention was notable not only for its content but also for what it revealed about the broader debate.

So far, he is the only voice of sanity in this important debate, offering measured commentary where others have either spoken from the darkness of not fully understanding what they are being asked to do or from the ugly depth of emotion devoid of reasoning.

NEFF MP Longinus Iipumbu's stance reportedly drew visible disappointment and discussion among opposition members when he told the House that the ministry conducts evaluations and compliance checks before matters reach the president, suggesting the structure could function if properly implemented.

AR leader Job Amupanda called for the debate on the petroleum bill to be adjourned and postponed to allow for broader consideration and for legislators to have more time to engage with the content and implications of the amendments, rather than proceeding immediately to a vote.

When party matters

Swapo MPs have defended the changes as necessary to impose development discipline and protect a strategic sector from institutional weakness.

Defence deputy minister Charles Mubita told parliament that electoral mandate matters in how strategic resources are governed.

“You must understand that the reason why Swapo got more votes in the election is because people have entrusted the Swapo government to run the resources,” Mubita said, drawing sharp resistance from opposition benches.

Agriculture deputy minister Ruthy Masake said the amendments were intended to ensure petroleum development benefits Namibians broadly, while balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility.

Opposition leaders have attacked the same design features, saying concentrating upstream authority in one political office weakens checks and balances at precisely the stage when Namibia should be building robust, corruption-resistant institutions for a future resource economy.

Independent Patriots for Change leader Panduleni Itula warned that the amendments risk undermining constitutional accountability by centralising petroleum governance in the Presidency.

“Petroleum governance must be built on constitutional accountability, not presidential centralisation,” Itula said, cautioning that key powers over royalties and regulations would shift into a structure with sweeping authority.

Popular Democratic Movement leader McHenry Venaani strongly opposed the proposed amendments, warning that the oil and gas bill could concentrate too much power in the Office of the President and effectively strip the minister and parliament of authority.

He said lawmakers must be cautious about “legislating to suit individuals rather than the country” and avoid reforms that serve the vision of a few rather than the broader public interest.

Missing

What has been largely missing from the debate is a collective parliamentary effort to rise above party allegiance and interrogate the bill against constitutional principles, institutional safeguards and Namibia’s long-term interests.

Too few MPs have engaged the substance of the law beyond defending party positions.

Oil, if and when it flows, will outlast the current parliament, Cabinet and presidency.

The laws passed now will govern future leaders and future temptations. That reality demands seriousness, independence of thought and a willingness to debate national issues as matters of state.