At the centre of this debate lies Section 92 of the Local Authorities Act. 

This provision certainly grants the Minister of Urban and Rural Development the power to intervene when a local authority council fails to perform its statutory duties, for instance, where it cannot meet its financial obligations, mismanages assets or fails to hold meetings as required under the Act.

However, the law is crystal clear that this power is not absolute. It must be exercised only after specific conditions are met, including demonstrable evidence of failure, a formal notice to the council and an opportunity for the council to make representations – natural justice. 

Even then, the minister must act rationally, lawfully and fairly as required by Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution, which demands administrative justice that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Yet, minister James Sankwasa’s recent and continuous interpretation of this section ignores those safeguards. 

His view appears to be that the minister may intervene and dissolve or suspend councils whenever he perceives a failure, even without evidence tested through a proper process. 

Such an interpretation is both legally incorrect and constitutionally dangerous.

Not absolute

In defending this expansive interpretation, the minister has relied on Articles 40 and 41 of the Namibian Constitution. Yet this reliance is fundamentally misplaced. Article 40 simply outlines the general functions of all ministers, including directing, coordinating and supervising the activities of their ministry, initiating and implementing legislation and ensuring that the ministry’s responsibilities are carried out lawfully and efficiently.

Article 41 adds an important requirement that every minister must act in accordance with the Constitution and any other law and must remain faithful to the Republic of Namibia. 

These articles are intentionally framed as general obligations that apply to every minister, regardless of portfolio. 

They do not create special intervention powers that exist outside the limits set by specific legislation. 

To argue otherwise disregards the structure of constitutional governance, which demands that ministers exercise only those powers lawfully delegated to them by Parliament.

Namibia’s Constitution establishes the country as a unitary state, but this does not mean that power should be hoarded at the centre. On the contrary, it includes a deliberate commitment to decentralisation. This commitment is both practical and philosophical. 

It reflects the principle of subsidiarity, a federalist concept that decisions affecting local communities should be made as closely as possible to those communities themselves.

The Local Authorities Act was designed to implement this vision by giving councils real authority and direct accountability to their electorates. Councillors are elected by the people they serve and not appointed by the minister. Their mandate is derived from the Constitution and statute. 

It can only be overridden in narrow, carefully defined circumstances or when the process set out in law is followed.

Protecting democracy 

Namibian courts have consistently affirmed that ministerial powers must remain within the boundaries set by law. In Nghidimbwa v Swapo Party of Namibia, the High Court overturned the removal of a councillor who had not been given a proper hearing, reaffirming the constitutional principle of natural justice. 

In Kahua and Others v Minister, the court made it clear that dissolving a council under Section 92 is only lawful where specific grounds have been established and procedural fairness has been observed. Most significantly, the Karasburg Town Council judgement in 2023 saw the High Court declare the minister’s action to suspend councillors unlawful and invalid from the outset. 

This ruling was not a minor technical correction. It was a clear statement that even when failure appears obvious, the rule of law still requires adherence to process and fairness.

Amendment bill

Alongside this flawed reading of Section 92 comes the equally concerning Regional Council Amendment Bill of 2025. This bill proposes to strip regional councils of significant decision-making power, centralise appointments under the minister and reduce elected bodies to mere advisory roles. The result is what can only be described as centralised democracy, where elections still happen but real power resides firmly with the minister. This model contradicts the Federalist principle that communities must have a genuine voice in decisions that affect them. It also undermines accountability because councillors become accountable upwards to the minister rather than outwards to the communities they were elected to serve.

Ministerial power 

The proper interpretation of Section 92 must recognise that ministerial intervention is an exceptional measure. The minister must first establish clear grounds, provide reasons and give councils a real opportunity to respond. This is not an optional courtesy but a constitutional requirement grounded in Article 18. Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution guide ministers to act lawfully and faithfully within their delegated powers. They do not grant the minister the authority to override or suspend democratic institutions except where Parliament has specifically allowed it, and then only under strict conditions.

Forward

If councils fail in their duties, the answer lies not in sweeping suspensions or dissolutions but in applying existing accountability mechanisms, strengthening administrative capacity, and fostering transparency. Local democracy must be supported, not suffocated. Real reform must be built on partnership between national and local government, grounded in respect for constitutional principles, rather than imposed from above.

Bathwater

Minister Sankwasa’s broad reading of Section 92, especially when combined with the centralising thrust of the Regional Council Amendment Bill, places Namibia on a path towards hollow local democracy. This interpretation must be firmly rejected. Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution call on ministers to act within the law and remain faithful to the democratic character of the Republic. They do not authorise the minister to substitute his judgement for that of the electorate, nor do they legitimise unchecked central control. In my view, this flawed interpretation should be thrown out with the proverbial bathwater. 

Namibia must reaffirm that local government is not a subordinate branch of the ministry but an essential pillar of democratic governance, where power is shared and decisions are made as close to the people as possible.

*William Minnie is the deputy national spokesperson of the Landless People’s Movement, a policy researcher and a former local government researcher.