Stop celebrating investments without negotiating ownership

On 4 November 2026, President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah officiated at the launch of the Dangote Namibia Tank Farm and Regional Pipeline Project at Walvis Bay. Aliko Dangote, one of Africa's wealthiest industrialists, is bringing a major petroleum storage and distribution development to Namibia, with ambitions to serve the domestic market and neighbouring countries, including Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and potentially the Democratic Republic of Congo.On the surface, this is excellent news. Namibia needs investment, infrastructure, employment opportunities and economic expansion. Nobody should oppose an investment simply because it comes from a foreign businessman. However, welcoming investment must never mean abandoning the responsibility to negotiate the best possible economic arrangements for Namibians. And this is precisely where serious questions arise.Consider what Dangote has done elsewhere in Africa.In Nigeria, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) initially acquired a 20% equity stake in the Dangote refinery. Its participation was subsequently reduced to approximately 7.2%. Dangote attributed the reduction to NNPC's failure to meet outstanding payment obligations, while NNPC maintained that its decision followed an assessment of its investment portfolio. Whatever the reasons, the important point for Namibia is that the Nigerian state initially negotiated direct ownership in a major strategic industrial investment.In East Africa, the proposed US$16 billion Dangote refinery in Lamu, Kenya, has opened another conversation about ownership. Dangote has reportedly offered regional governments a combined equity participation of up to 30%, with Kenya allocated an initial 10%. Kenya has also indicated its willingness to increase its participation should other countries decline their allocations. Although an offer of equity is not the same as completed shareholding, the example demonstrates that governments can actively pursue ownership opportunities when negotiating major investments.Admittedly, these are refinery investments, whereas the Namibian development centres on petroleum storage and regional distribution infrastructure. They are not identical commercial undertakings. Nevertheless, the underlying principle is relevant: African governments should not approach strategic investments merely as hosts, facilitators or providers of infrastructure. They must also examine opportunities for direct ownership, institutional investment and meaningful long-term economic participation.Now, let us return home.The Dangote project at Walvis Bay is reported to involve a petroleum storage facility with a planned capacity of approximately 600 million litres, comprising diesel and petrol storage, alongside a proposed regional pipeline network extending approximately 1,700 kilometres. Valued at around US$2.5 billion, this is not simply another commercial development intended to serve Walvis Bay. It is part of a wider regional energy distribution strategy that could position Namibia as a major petroleum logistics and distribution gateway.Yet, where is Namibia's publicly disclosed equity participation in this strategic investment? What percentage of the project belongs to the Namibian state? What percentage, if any, has been reserved for Namibian institutional investors? Has the government explored a shareholding arrangement for NAMCOR, the Government Institutions Pension Fund (GIPF) or another appropriate Namibian investment institution? If not, why?I am not suggesting that Namibia should automatically receive free shares simply because an investor establishes a business within its borders. Equity participation must be negotiated, properly valued and supported by sound commercial arrangements. Nor should government commit public funds without adequately assessing the financial risks. What I am questioning is whether Namibia explored direct ownership and, if so, what long-term economic arrangements were secured in return for facilitating an investment of this magnitude.President Nandi-Ndaitwah stated at the launch that the project had been placed under the Office of the President in 2025 and would remain a presidential project until completion. The arrangement, she explained, was intended to facilitate implementation and overcome bureaucratic obstacles that have frustrated other investments.That explanation, however, makes the question of national economic participation even more important. If such high-level political attention was necessary to ensure that the investor's project proceeded, what equally firm attention was given to securing Namibia's ownership interests and long-term economic benefits? Presidential oversight should not only ensure that an investor's project is implemented; it must also ensure that the national interest is protected.Employment is not ownershipThe president also spoke about prioritising Namibians in employment, skills transfer and local content, while indicating that government's broader local content framework was nearing finalisation.These are important commitments, but they must translate into measurable and enforceable obligations. How many permanent Namibian jobs will the project create, as opposed to temporary construction employment? What proportion of procurement will go to Namibian businesses? Will Namibian engineers, technicians, transport operators and other professionals occupy meaningful positions in the project's operations? What specific skills-transfer commitments have been secured, and who will monitor compliance?Promises of employment and local participation are important, but they are not substitutes for binding agreements. The public deserves to know what targets have been established, which institutions will monitor them and what consequences will follow if commitments are not honoured.An investment can be worth billions and still generate limited long-term economic benefits for its host country if ownership, procurement and operational arrangements concentrate most of the value elsewhere. Investment figures alone should never be the measure of successful economic leadership.We must also consider what this means for existing Namibian businesses.Namibia already has an established petroleum distribution industry involving fuel wholesalers, importers, transport operators, storage facilities and other service providers. These businesses employ Namibians, have invested in equipment and infrastructure, and contribute to the domestic economy.A regional operation with substantial capital, storage infrastructure and extensive distribution arrangements could introduce significant competition into this market. Such competition could improve fuel supply, reduce transportation costs and benefit consumers. These are welcome possibilities. However, it could also place considerable pressure on existing businesses, particularly local fuel transporters and smaller operators whose livelihoods depend on current distribution arrangements.What happens when a regional giant with access to substantial capital, refinery capacity, storage infrastructure and cross-border distribution networks enters the same market as Namibian businesses? What happens to local companies that have invested millions in trucks, equipment, employees and distribution networks?Government must anticipate these possible disruptions and ensure that Namibian businesses have meaningful opportunities to participate in construction, supply chains, transportation, maintenance and ongoing operations. Protecting local participation does not mean creating artificial barriers to competition. It means ensuring that local businesses are not reduced to spectators in an economic opportunity unfolding in their own country.A gateway into AfricaThere is another dimension to this investment that deserves attention: Namibia's strategic geographical position.Walvis Bay is a major gateway into Southern Africa. Our port, transport corridors, political stability and access to regional markets are valuable national assets. These advantages strengthen Namibia's negotiating position. They are not gifts from foreign investors.If Namibia is to become an important distribution gateway for petroleum products serving several countries, we must ask whether the country is capturing a fair share of the economic value generated by that strategic position.Port charges, taxes, land-lease income, employment and local procurement are important sources of economic benefit. But should these be the only benefits we seek when opportunities for strategic equity participation may also exist?The public also deserves clarity on the project's land arrangements, including ownership and tenure, the financial terms under which the land is being made available and the obligations attached to its use. Where public institutions or municipal assets facilitate major private investments, the arrangements must be transparent and demonstrably beneficial to the country.Then there is the question of energy security.The project is being presented partly as an opportunity to strengthen Namibia's petroleum supply and regional distribution capacity. But what guarantees will ensure that Namibia benefits from this infrastructure during periods of supply disruption? Will there be arrangements for strategic reserves, emergency access and reliable domestic supply? Will Namibia have clearly defined rights to access the infrastructure when national circumstances require it?These are not peripheral questions. Infrastructure located in Namibia does not automatically mean that Namibia owns, controls or has priority access to it.If other African governments can negotiate equity participation in strategic investments, why should Namibia not at least explore the same possibility? If Nigeria could negotiate direct state participation in a refinery, and Kenya could pursue an allocation in a proposed regional refinery, why should Namibia not have considered whether NAMCOR or another appropriate Namibian investment institution could participate in a strategic petroleum storage and distribution venture?Namibia has spent decades talking about industrialisation, local ownership, economic transformation and the empowerment of its people. Yet, whenever major investment opportunities arise, we must ask whether Namibians are being positioned as owners, meaningful business partners and beneficiaries, or merely as workers and consumers in projects owned and controlled elsewhere.This is not an argument against Dangote. It is an argument for Namibia.Our country deserves more than ceremonial launches and impressive investment figures. It deserves strategic negotiations, transparent agreements, accountable leadership and economic arrangements that put national interests at the centre.And if this is what we call visionary leadership, perhaps we need to revisit our understanding of what vision actually means.A visionary government does not merely open the doors of its country to investors. It ensures that, when those investors leave the negotiating table, the country has secured a meaningful stake in its own economic future.*Hidipo Hamata writes from Omafo, Helao Nafidi Town, in his personal capacity, advocating for the transparent, accountable and equitable management of Namibia's natural resources in the best interests of all Namibians and future generations.

Stop celebrating investments without negotiating ownership

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-06

Please login to leave a comment

Stop celebrating investments without negotiating ownership

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-11-06

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Login

Subscription Required to Access Content