Swapo succession: NNN’s unopposed path to the presidency

As the Swapo Party approaches its next elective congress, internal political activity has intensified. Public debates, political lobbying, de-campaigning, allegations of slate politics, and competing narratives have all become part of the succession discourse.

Yet, despite these developments, one political reality appears to be taking shape: a significant (m)ajority of party cadres are rallying behind President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah (NNN) to contest the presidency of the Party unopposed.

Some factions have argued that allowing President Nandi-Ndaitwah to contest unopposed would violate the SWAPO Party Constitution and Rules and Procedures. However, a careful legal interpretation of the relevant provisions does not support that conclusion. Instead, the Party Rules expressly provide a lawful framework under which a single candidate may emerge as the presidential nominee.

The Interpretation of Rules 35.1 and 12

A proper interpretation of Rules 35.1 and 12 of the SWAPO Party Rules and Procedures demonstrates that neither the Politburo nor the Central Committee is under a (mandatory) legal obligation to nominate three candidates for the office of Party President. The Rules confer discretionary authority rather than imposing a compulsory duty. Rule 35.1 provides that the Politburo shall identify up to three candidates for each of the top four positions, while the Central Committee may identify up to three additional candidates. The operative phrase is "up to three."

In statutory and constitutional interpretation, the phrase "up to" establishes a maximum permissible limit rather than a compulsory minimum. Had the drafters intended to require three candidates in every circumstance, they would have employed mandatory language such as "shall identify three candidates" or "not less than three candidates."

They deliberately refrained from using such wording. This interpretation is reinforced by the well-established legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the express mention of one thing excludes another. Since Rule 35.1 expressly provides only the upper numerical limit without prescribing a minimum number of candidates, it would be legally improper to imply an obligation that the drafters intentionally omitted.

Similarly, the maxim casus omissus pro omisso habendus est applies. Courts and interpreting bodies are not permitted to insert words into legislation or governing rules that the framers deliberately excluded. The Rules do not require the Politburo or the Central Committee to nominate three candidates. Consequently, no such mandatory obligation can lawfully be inferred. Rule 12 strengthens this interpretation even further. It provides that no position shall be filled by automatic promotion, acclamation or confirmation unless only one candidate is nominated for that particular office. This provision expressly recognises the legal possibility that only one candidate may emerge through the nomination process.

In other words, Rule 12 does not prohibit uncontested election(s). On the contrary, it regulates them by prescribing what should happen where only one validly nominated candidate exists. Therefore, the Rules themselves acknowledge that an uncontested candidature is both possible and lawful.

Accordingly, if the Politburo and the Central Committee exercise their discretion and nominate President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah as the sole candidate for Party President, such a decision would remain fully consistent with both Rule 35.1 and Rule 12. The nomination process would have complied with the Party Rules because it would have lawfully produced a single candidate, precisely the circumstance contemplated by Rule 12. The argument that three presidential candidates are legally compulsory is therefore unsupported by the text of the Rules. Rather, the Rules allow the competent organs of the Party to determine, in the exercise of their discretion, whether to nominate one, two or three candidates, provided the process complies with the Party Constitution and established procedures.

Historical Precedent

Beyond legal interpretation, history also provides important guidance. Swapo has, on several occasions, elected its presidents through uncontested congresses. This is not an unprecedented development but rather an established feature of the Party's political tradition.

I vividly recall a discussion during an appearance on Evening Review with Toivo Ndjebela in 2024. During that conversation, I observed that Swapo would eventually confront the very debate unfolding today. My question was simple: if Presidents Sam Nujoma, Hifikepunye Pohamba and Hage Geingob all contested the presidency of the Party unopposed, why should President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah be treated differently?

That observation has now become increasingly relevant as the Party prepares for its next congress. At the 1991 Swapo Congress, President Sam Nujoma contested unopposed. The same occurred again in 1996; in 2002, President Nujoma once again contested unopposed; following the leadership transition, President Hifikepunye Pohamba also contested unopposed in both 2007 and 2012 and likewise, President Hage Geingob contested unopposed during the 2022 Swapo Congress.

These successive congresses established a consistent political precedent within the Party. They demonstrate that uncontested leadership elections have repeatedly occurred where the overwhelming majority of delegates and Party structures reached broad consensus around the incumbent. If Party members now decide to extend the same political confidence to President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, such an outcome would not represent a departure from Swapo's historical practice. Rather, it would be consistent with a long-established precedent.

Lessons from the 2017 Congress

Politics is often shaped as much by experience as by legal rules. Many observers continue to reflect on the consequences of the highly contested 2017 elective congress. The intense internal competition and slate politics that characterised that period produced divisions whose effects were felt well beyond the congress itself. Following those internal contests, Swapo experienced a significant decline in electoral dominance, culminating in reduced representation in the National Assembly. Whether one attributes that outcome solely to internal divisions or to broader political developments, it remains difficult to ignore the impact of prolonged factional contestation on party unity.

For that reason, many Party members now argue that preserving unity should be prioritised over creating unnecessary contests for the presidency. In their view, allowing the sitting Party President to contest unopposed while democratic competition takes place for the positions of Vice President, Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General may reduce internal tensions and strengthen organisational cohesion. Whether one agrees with this political strategy or not, it reflects a genuine concern among many cadres who wish to avoid repeating the divisions associated with previous succession battles.

The Political Reality

Politics is ultimately determined by support. President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah currently occupies the dual position of President of the Republic of Namibia and President of the Swapo Party. Incumbency naturally carries significant political influence, organisational support and institutional legitimacy. From my assessment of current political dynamics within the Party, I do not see a serious challenger capable of matching her political weight or organisational support. She is one of the Party's most experienced leaders, having served in various senior positions over several decades. That experience has earned her considerable respect across different structures of the movement.

History also demonstrates that challenging a sitting Party President has rarely produced political success. More often than not, challengers have struggled to maintain long-term political relevance after unsuccessful campaigns. This historical pattern explains why many within the Party believe that an uncontested presidency would better serve organisational stability than an unnecessary leadership contest whose outcome appears largely predictable.

Ultimately, the decision will not be made by commentators or analysts but by the constitutionally recognised structures of the Party. If those structures exercise their discretion in accordance with the Rules and Procedures and nominate President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah as the sole candidate, such a process would be both legally permissible and historically consistent.

The debate surrounding an uncontested presidential candidature should be approached with careful legal analysis rather than political emotion. Rules 35.1 and 12, when interpreted according to established principles of legal interpretation, do not impose a mandatory obligation to nominate three presidential candidates. Instead, they permit the nomination of one, two or three candidates, depending on the discretion exercised by the Party's competent organs.

Furthermore, Swapo's own institutional history demonstrates that uncontested presidential elections are not unusual. Presidents Sam Nujoma, Hifikepunye Pohamba and Hage Geingob each contested unopposed during various congresses, establishing a precedent that remains part of the Party's political tradition.

Stephanus Pombili is a Swapo Party cadre and political analyst who writes in his personal capacity on internal party governance and constitutionalism. The views expressed in this article are his own.