Hengari calls for ACC director general nominees vetting committee
Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) lawmaker Inna Hengari has called for the creation of a multi-party vetting committee to scrutinise the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) director general and deputy director general nominees.
The debate, triggered by Affirmative Repositioning (AR) MP Frederick Shitana, comes as current ACC Director General Paulus Noa’s fifth five-year term draws to an end.
In her contribution, Hengari asked whether Parliament, as an institution, has the capacity to exercise this authority effectively.
"Do we have the vetting mechanisms, the committees, or the institutional framework to assess the nominees forwarded by the President properly?
"The Constitution allows the President to submit two or three names, but the appointing power rests with Parliament,” she said.
Parliament appoints
According to Hengari, the issue requires introspection to say whether Parliament, as a law-making institution, is adequately positioned to exercise this authority.
"I believe the answer is no,” she said.
Hengari said the issue lies not with the Constitution itself but with how lawmakers carry out their duties.
Referring to Article 94A, subsection 5, she noted: “The article clearly states that the National Assembly shall appoint the director-general and deputy director-General of the Anti-Corruption Commission upon nomination by the President. I once thought this provision was problematic, but a colleague later persuaded me that it is not so much the article itself, because while the President nominates, it is ultimately Parliament that appoints.”
She warned against Parliament becoming a “rubber stamp” of the executive and argued that reforms were needed to strengthen oversight.
“It is not enough to say the names have been nominated and submitted by the President, and therefore our duty is only to stamp and appoint. If you take a deeper look and introspect, there is a necessity to build this institution so that it is able to exercise this authority.”
Administrative and institutional issues
To address this, she proposed a vetting committee with representation from all political parties.
“Are we going to ensure that there’s representation from all political parties so that those members sit on a vetting committee or vetting board that looks at those names?” Hengari asked.
Beyond the appointment process, she raised concerns about the ACC itself.
“Year after year, monies are allocated to the ACC. But those of us who are alive to the issues of this country, and who have been following even the recent cases in court, realise there are administrative and institutional issues. We must address these as we look at the ACC, because this institution must function and exist beyond individuals.”
Former finance minister Iipumbu Shiimi emphasised that accountability lies with lawmakers.
“It’s important to understand what is working and what isn’t working clearly. Take, for example, the appointment of the director general and deputy director general of the ACC. This is a constitutional process.
"The Constitution clearly states that the President nominates, and the National Assembly appoints. The ultimate authority to appoint rests with Parliament, not the President. So, if the National Assembly appoints the wrong people, it is the responsibility of the National Assembly. The final authority lies in this House. That is the first point,” Shiimi said.
Call for a structured process
He added that qualifications for the post are already set in law.
“Section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act also specifies the qualifications required for the director general and deputy director general.
"Section 4 clearly outlines who qualifies, for example, people who have been convicted of certain crimes, people who are not Namibians, and other specific requirements. All these details are clearly laid out in law,” Shiimi said.
AR leader and lawmaker Job Amupanda supported the call for a structured process.
“The motion before us seeks to do two things. Even if you decide that the President should continue to nominate, the motion is simply calling for a defined process for nominations. You are not taking away the President’s right to nominate. What it proposes is that, in consideration of a nomination, there should be a formal process, similar to how Parliament appoints members of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN),” Amupanda said.
He added that transparency was key.
“In the public service, for example, committees conduct interviews live and in public, ensuring transparency. Nominations are filtered to inspire confidence before coming to this House.
Section 4 of the ACC Act requires a person of high integrity. These qualities — integrity, experience, and competence — can be assessed during a formal process. Without such a process, there is no clear basis to evaluate candidates.”
[email protected]
The debate, triggered by Affirmative Repositioning (AR) MP Frederick Shitana, comes as current ACC Director General Paulus Noa’s fifth five-year term draws to an end.
In her contribution, Hengari asked whether Parliament, as an institution, has the capacity to exercise this authority effectively.
"Do we have the vetting mechanisms, the committees, or the institutional framework to assess the nominees forwarded by the President properly?
"The Constitution allows the President to submit two or three names, but the appointing power rests with Parliament,” she said.
Parliament appoints
According to Hengari, the issue requires introspection to say whether Parliament, as a law-making institution, is adequately positioned to exercise this authority.
"I believe the answer is no,” she said.
Hengari said the issue lies not with the Constitution itself but with how lawmakers carry out their duties.
Referring to Article 94A, subsection 5, she noted: “The article clearly states that the National Assembly shall appoint the director-general and deputy director-General of the Anti-Corruption Commission upon nomination by the President. I once thought this provision was problematic, but a colleague later persuaded me that it is not so much the article itself, because while the President nominates, it is ultimately Parliament that appoints.”
She warned against Parliament becoming a “rubber stamp” of the executive and argued that reforms were needed to strengthen oversight.
“It is not enough to say the names have been nominated and submitted by the President, and therefore our duty is only to stamp and appoint. If you take a deeper look and introspect, there is a necessity to build this institution so that it is able to exercise this authority.”
Administrative and institutional issues
To address this, she proposed a vetting committee with representation from all political parties.
“Are we going to ensure that there’s representation from all political parties so that those members sit on a vetting committee or vetting board that looks at those names?” Hengari asked.
Beyond the appointment process, she raised concerns about the ACC itself.
“Year after year, monies are allocated to the ACC. But those of us who are alive to the issues of this country, and who have been following even the recent cases in court, realise there are administrative and institutional issues. We must address these as we look at the ACC, because this institution must function and exist beyond individuals.”
Former finance minister Iipumbu Shiimi emphasised that accountability lies with lawmakers.
“It’s important to understand what is working and what isn’t working clearly. Take, for example, the appointment of the director general and deputy director general of the ACC. This is a constitutional process.
"The Constitution clearly states that the President nominates, and the National Assembly appoints. The ultimate authority to appoint rests with Parliament, not the President. So, if the National Assembly appoints the wrong people, it is the responsibility of the National Assembly. The final authority lies in this House. That is the first point,” Shiimi said.
Call for a structured process
He added that qualifications for the post are already set in law.
“Section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act also specifies the qualifications required for the director general and deputy director general.
"Section 4 clearly outlines who qualifies, for example, people who have been convicted of certain crimes, people who are not Namibians, and other specific requirements. All these details are clearly laid out in law,” Shiimi said.
AR leader and lawmaker Job Amupanda supported the call for a structured process.
“The motion before us seeks to do two things. Even if you decide that the President should continue to nominate, the motion is simply calling for a defined process for nominations. You are not taking away the President’s right to nominate. What it proposes is that, in consideration of a nomination, there should be a formal process, similar to how Parliament appoints members of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN),” Amupanda said.
He added that transparency was key.
“In the public service, for example, committees conduct interviews live and in public, ensuring transparency. Nominations are filtered to inspire confidence before coming to this House.
Section 4 of the ACC Act requires a person of high integrity. These qualities — integrity, experience, and competence — can be assessed during a formal process. Without such a process, there is no clear basis to evaluate candidates.”
[email protected]
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article