President Hage Geingob has placed on top of his agenda the eradication of poverty in the country, branded a tall order by some and an impossible mission by others.
In almost every one of his speeches since March 21 last year, the President emphasised his determination to bring poverty to its knees. Geingob in fact – time and again – asked everyone in the country to make their own contribution towards this ambitious, but noble goal.
As one of the modalities towards achieving this, the President last year called for State-funded student loans to be transformed into grants in order to control debts and help young people build their wealth portfolios.
He gave a chilling example of how students are trapped in debt even before they graduate – a situation which he said has prompted many young professionals to remain in poverty even when they are employed.
It is our contention that poverty eradication is a war that must be fought holistically – meaning all institutions of the State – and indeed the private sector – must figure out how they would practically contribute towards that ambition.
Yesterday an unprecedented movement of student activism swept across Windhoek when students at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) embarked on protests against the 3.5 percent increase in registration fees.
The last time Namibia witnessed a similar situation by students was in the late 1980s when a militant NANSO stood up to demand democratically elected student representative councils (SRCs) in schools. They fought against the militarisation in the education system, apartheid, colonialism, injustice and repression.
While details remain sketchy into what motivated NUST to increase its registration fees, it goes without saying that such decision is against government’s clarion call for poverty eradication.
To be fair, having been elevated to university status, there would be added financial pressure on NUST, but such a burden should not be passed onto students and their often struggling families.
If anything, NUST should be knocking on Treasury’s doors to justify why it needs a fatter purse instead of barking up the wrong trees – namely the students.
A 3.5 percent increment may sound nominal, but for a pensioner in rural Namibia who helps fund her granddaughter’s tuition fees, this is a substantial amount.
We must bear in mind that NUST had a registration fee increment in 2014 – meaning there was relief for only one year (2015) before students were slapped with a new hike again this year.
The ruling party Swapo, whose policies drive the lion’s share of government programmes, promised in its 2014 election manifesto to explore avenues of making tertiary education partially free, as a means to develop skills in key areas of development.
Against this background, we had expected public institutions of higher learning to devise strategies that would make such plans a reality, instead of sucking students’ pockets dry.
It is our hope, therefore, that NUST and the ministry of higher education find a solution that would not disadvantage students.
The decision, whatever it is, must be populist in nature and supportive of government’s poverty eradication agenda. This could mean asking Treasury to avail adequate budget allocation to NUST so that the students are spared the covert bailout responsibility.