ACC crisis is systemic, not about one individual – analyst

As debate intensifies over Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) director general Paulus Noa’s future, analyst Rui Tyitende argues the debate should focus on a deeply flawed system rather than the individual.

“The moral system is broken, not the legal one,” Tyitende said in an interview with Namibian Sun. "Noa is not the problem, but a by-product of the system in which he operates," he added.

Noa’s fourth term as ACC director general is set to end in June and has already sparked public discussions over whether he should continue in the position.

Tyitende claimed that Noa was appointed to a structure designed, in his view, to shield political elites implicated in corruption rather than to hold them accountable.

According to Tyitende, corruption in Namibia has evolved into a conditional practice rather than one that is consistently condemned.

He argued that wrongdoing is often tolerated as long as benefits are shared within political networks, citing the Fishrot scandal as an example of how public funds were allegedly diverted to individuals connected to the ruling party and used to support political activities.

“It has become customary for past tender beneficiaries to appear at ruling party fundraising events, accompanied by an unspoken expectation of protection or favour,” Tyitende alleged.

From this perspective, he added, Noa has functioned as “the perfect candidate to maintain the status quo”, rather than as a disruptive force within an entrenched political economy.

Deplorable and miserable

Political parties have also weighed in on the debate, with many critics targeting Noa’s record as head of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

Popular Democratic Movement leader McHenry Venaani, speaking on a local radio station last week, distinguished between Noa as an individual and his performance as commission chief.

Venaani described Noa as personable but characterised his tenure as “deplorable and miserable”.

Venaani cited several major infrastructure projects and allegations of corruption involving state-owned enterprises, which, he said, were never thoroughly investigated. He argued that while the ACC has pursued minor corruption cases, it has repeatedly failed to act decisively on high-level matters with significant public impact.

Another feature of Venaani’s criticism is the length of Noa’s tenure.

Noa has served four terms, a situation Venaani said undermines institutional independence by encouraging senior officials to align themselves with political power in the hope of reappointment. He has called for strict term limits, proposing a single, non-renewable five-year term to promote decisiveness rather than caution.

A more measured view was expressed by Independent Patriots for Change leader Panduleni Itula, who acknowledged that continuity at the ACC has contributed to institutional stability and expanded public awareness initiatives.

However, Itula said these gains have not translated into visible accountability in high-profile cases.

“Leadership must ultimately be measured by outcomes,” Itula said, warning that the gap between repeated corruption revelations and limited convictions has fuelled public cynicism and normalised impunity.

While noting that responsibility does not rest solely with the ACC, given prosecutorial and court bottlenecks, Itula stressed that anti-corruption bodies must be “independent in law and fearless in practice” if public confidence is to be restored.

[email protected]