Data: Evidence of untold stories that drive change and improve lives
Data has always been central to effective governance. Yet for much of 2025, local newspapers have repeatedly carried headlines lamenting the “lack of data” across various sectors in Namibia. From the Central Planning Office’s (CPO) difficulties in obtaining timely employment statistics, to reports that the Ministry of Health and Social Services lacked official records during a surge in snakebite incidents, the message has been consistent: Namibia is struggling with the availability and reliability of timely data.
This should concern anyone who values planning, service delivery and accountability. It is particularly troubling given that Namibia has implemented successive editions of the National Development Plans (NDPs) since independence, with the sixth NDP (NDP6) launched in July 2025. In principle, all these plans should be informed by routine administrative and operational data generated daily by offices, ministries and agencies (OMAs). Persistent data gaps therefore raise two fundamental questions: are decisions being made on evidence or on assumptions, emotion and expediency; and how can sound decisions be taken when evidence is missing or delayed?
Institutionally, the CPO oversees national planning, while the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) is mandated to coordinate and manage official statistics. Yet continued complaints about missing data point to weaknesses in coordination, resourcing and enforcement — particularly concerning when quality data can directly improve people’s lives. While years of reported underfunding at the NSA may partly explain the situation, this also raises questions about the prioritisation of key data exercises, such as the Population and Housing Census, in informing NDP6 and Vision 2030.
Importantly, most national data does not originate from censuses or surveys alone. It is produced by OMAs through routine administrative systems: health records, education registers, employment databases, agricultural reports and justice statistics. These data collectors form the backbone of evidence-based planning. The challenge, therefore, is not only about central agencies, but about whether OMAs are systematically collecting, managing and sharing quality data — and whether they are held accountable for doing so.
A lack of skills cannot reasonably be cited as the main constraint. Namibia’s institutions of higher learning annually produce graduates in statistics, data science, information systems, monitoring and evaluation, health, agriculture and population studies. The more pertinent question is whether government recognises and effectively deploys this expertise. Where such capacity exists within OMAs, is it empowered to drive change, or constrained by rigid hierarchies and a weak data culture?
A comparison with the private sector is instructive. Regulatory authorities and financial institutions routinely publish timely and accurate quarterly statistics, demonstrating that reliable data systems are achievable when leadership, accountability and systems are aligned. There are clear lessons here for the public sector.
Encouragingly, political commitment exists at the highest level. The President has repeatedly emphasised evidence-based planning, alongside plans to strengthen monitoring and evaluation units within government by 2026 and introduce mandatory data-sharing mechanisms. These are positive and long-overdue reforms. However, their success will depend on genuine implementation.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Namibia is only now recognising the importance of data. Rather, it is whether OMAs have the right people in place, and whether institutions are willing to institutionalise data use by empowering data collectors, supporting technical professionals, and reporting accurate information — even when it is uncomfortable. Without this shift, planning will remain aspirational rather than evidence-driven.
Namibia does not need to rediscover the importance of data. It needs to entrench its use as the foundation of planning, decision-making and accountability. After all, data has always been central to effective governance.
Concerned citizen
This should concern anyone who values planning, service delivery and accountability. It is particularly troubling given that Namibia has implemented successive editions of the National Development Plans (NDPs) since independence, with the sixth NDP (NDP6) launched in July 2025. In principle, all these plans should be informed by routine administrative and operational data generated daily by offices, ministries and agencies (OMAs). Persistent data gaps therefore raise two fundamental questions: are decisions being made on evidence or on assumptions, emotion and expediency; and how can sound decisions be taken when evidence is missing or delayed?
Institutionally, the CPO oversees national planning, while the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) is mandated to coordinate and manage official statistics. Yet continued complaints about missing data point to weaknesses in coordination, resourcing and enforcement — particularly concerning when quality data can directly improve people’s lives. While years of reported underfunding at the NSA may partly explain the situation, this also raises questions about the prioritisation of key data exercises, such as the Population and Housing Census, in informing NDP6 and Vision 2030.
Importantly, most national data does not originate from censuses or surveys alone. It is produced by OMAs through routine administrative systems: health records, education registers, employment databases, agricultural reports and justice statistics. These data collectors form the backbone of evidence-based planning. The challenge, therefore, is not only about central agencies, but about whether OMAs are systematically collecting, managing and sharing quality data — and whether they are held accountable for doing so.
A lack of skills cannot reasonably be cited as the main constraint. Namibia’s institutions of higher learning annually produce graduates in statistics, data science, information systems, monitoring and evaluation, health, agriculture and population studies. The more pertinent question is whether government recognises and effectively deploys this expertise. Where such capacity exists within OMAs, is it empowered to drive change, or constrained by rigid hierarchies and a weak data culture?
A comparison with the private sector is instructive. Regulatory authorities and financial institutions routinely publish timely and accurate quarterly statistics, demonstrating that reliable data systems are achievable when leadership, accountability and systems are aligned. There are clear lessons here for the public sector.
Encouragingly, political commitment exists at the highest level. The President has repeatedly emphasised evidence-based planning, alongside plans to strengthen monitoring and evaluation units within government by 2026 and introduce mandatory data-sharing mechanisms. These are positive and long-overdue reforms. However, their success will depend on genuine implementation.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Namibia is only now recognising the importance of data. Rather, it is whether OMAs have the right people in place, and whether institutions are willing to institutionalise data use by empowering data collectors, supporting technical professionals, and reporting accurate information — even when it is uncomfortable. Without this shift, planning will remain aspirational rather than evidence-driven.
Namibia does not need to rediscover the importance of data. It needs to entrench its use as the foundation of planning, decision-making and accountability. After all, data has always been central to effective governance.
Concerned citizen
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article