In a move that has sent shockwaves through Namibia’s governance and legal circles, the Cabinet’s reported directive to reinstate former Meat Corporation of Namibia (Meatco) CEO Mwilima Mushokabanji after the board lawfully chose not to renew his contract, has ignited a constitutional firestorm. 

This act is more than a political squabble. 

It represents a fundamental breach of the principles of administrative justice, legal accountability and the constitutional separation of powers. 

The Cabinet’s interference is not merely inappropriate. 

It is unlawful – and if left unchecked, it risks eroding the very foundation of Namibia’s constitutional democracy.

The law speaks clearly

The law governing Meatco is not ambiguous. 

The Meatco Act 1 of 2001 explicitly states in section 12(1) that the appointment of the CEO is the sole responsibility of the board – not Cabinet. 

The provision reads: “The board shall appoint a person (other than a director) as CEO of the Corporation”. 

This is not a suggestion. It is a statutory mandate. Furthermore, section 12(6) reinforces that only the board has the authority to remove a CEO, and only after that CEO has been given the opportunity to be heard. 

These safeguards are not procedural niceties. 

They are constitutional guarantees flowing directly from Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution.

This ensures that all administrative action must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

Yet, despite the clarity of the law, Cabinet is reportedly attempting to compel the new Meatco coard to reappoint Mushokabanji.

This move not only undermines the board’s independence but also tramples over the foundational principle of the rule of law. 

This is not governance – it is executive overreach. 

It risks reducing Namibia’s constitutional democracy to a system of rule by political fiat. 

It must be understood that Namibia is governed by constitutional supremacy – not executive supremacy. Article 1(6) of the Constitution declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding on all branches of government. 

Any action taken by any organ of State must conform to it or it is invalid. 

The Cabinet’s intervention, unless supported by a lawful process initiated and led by the board, falls short of this requirement. 

The principle of legality, a cornerstone of administrative law, dictates that all exercises of public power must be authorised by law. 

If Cabinet attempts to dictate an appointment outside the framework provided by legislation, it acts ultra vires – beyond its legal authority.

Legal precedent cannot be ignored

Namibian courts have consistently affirmed this position. In Government of Namibia v Sikunda, the Supreme Court held that the right to administrative justice under Article 18 is not merely a common law privilege but a fundamental constitutional right. 

In Chairperson of the Immigration Selection Board v Frank, the court reaffirmed that public bodies must act within the bounds of their statutory powers. 

The Meatco board is an independent statutory body. 

It is not a rubber stamp for political instructions. 

Cabinet cannot legally compel it to appoint a specific individual without breaching the law and the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Public Enterprises Governance Act 1 of 2019 does not give Cabinet the power to appoint CEOs. 

It allows for Cabinet to approve Board recommendations – not to initiate or impose them. 

The distinction is crucial. 

What we are witnessing now is a Cabinet that appears to believe it can override statutory procedures simply because it prefers a different outcome. 

That is not oversight – it is usurpation. 

That is not legal governance but unlawful interference. 

The implications of this action are far-reaching. 

If allowed to proceed, it sets a dangerous precedent where boards of directors at State-owned enterprises may no longer be trusted to act independently. 

It sends the message that board decisions can be overridden by political whim, which completely undermines principles of corporate governance and accountability. More troublingly, it creates the perception that political loyalty – not legal procedure or merit, determines leadership in public institutions. If challenged in court, the Cabinet’s directive is likely to be struck down as unconstitutional. 

Such a challenge could be brought by the Meatco board itself or any party with an interest in ensuring lawful administrative action. The courts have the authority to declare such executive action invalid under Article 25 of the Constitution. 

In fact, they have done so before as seen in cases like Kessl v Minister of Lands, where procedural unfairness and disregard for administrative justice rendered a government decision invalid despite its otherwise lawful objective.

A moment of reckoning

What Namibia faces today is not just a legal question but a democratic one. 

Do we still honour the separation of powers? 

Do we still believe in the rule of law, where no one, not even Cabinet, is above legal constraints? 

Or are we willing to let political convenience erode our legal institutions? 

The answer to these questions will define not only the outcome at Meatco but the future of administrative integrity in Namibia. 

Public outrage is warranted. 

The silence from Parliament, civil society and legal watchdogs is deafening. 

If the public does not demand accountability now, we risk allowing this constitutional breach to become a political norm. The Meatco board must stand its ground. 

It must defend its statutory mandate – not only for the sake of Meatco but for the credibility of every board overseeing a public institution in Namibia. 

Cabinet must withdraw its directive. 

If it truly believes in reinstating Mushokabanji, then it must follow the law, initiate a new recruitment process, submit his candidacy like any other applicant and allow the board to make a decision in accordance with the law. The rule of law is not optional. 

It is the bedrock of Namibia’s constitutional democracy. When Cabinet disrespects it, the consequences are not confined to a boardroom. They ripple through the entire governance structure. It is time for leaders to be reminded that their authority is not absolute. 

It is constrained, regulated and, above all, accountable to the law.

The way forward

The only path that respects both the rule of law and the dignity of governance is one where the Cabinet respects the autonomy of the board and upholds the Constitution. 

The board must reassert its legal mandate even if it means resisting political pressure. 

Civil society must speak up and demand transparency and lawful conduct from the executive. 

If the government wishes to influence leadership in State-owned enterprises, it must do so within the law – not by diktat. 

This moment is a litmus test for Namibia’s democracy. We either uphold our constitutional values or surrender them to the convenience of unchecked power. 

The way forward is clear: return to the law, restore institutional independence and reinforce a culture where power is exercised – not as privilege but as duty under law.

*Brian Ngutjinazo is a final year Bachelor or Law student at the University of Namibia. The views expressed here are his own.