The chairperson of the Namibia Training Authority (NTA), Jorome Mutemba (JM), says a culture of unaccountability and project mismanagement at the institution is being dismantled. 

This, he says, is part of a broader shift towards transparency, accountability, and operational efficiency.

In a wide-ranging interview with New Era’s Edward Mumbuu (ED), Mutemba opened up about delayed infrastructure projects, the governance reform agenda, and the contentious issue of NTA’s dual role as regulator and operator in the vocational training sector.

ED: When planning these campuses, why were all the necessary facilities like hostels not constructed from the outset? Was it a matter of limited resources?

JM: That’s partly due to how things were done historically. Most of the infrastructure projects were done in phases – first the workshops and administration blocks, and then hostels in later stages. Resource limitations often dictated this phased model. We have master plans that guided each centre’s development in phases. Phase one typically included classrooms and workshops, and phase two brought in hostels and other support infrastructure. It was not an oversight but a planned approach, albeit driven by budget realities.

ED: When you were appointed, you emphasised the strategic importance of the TVET sector. Given the high unemployment rate and the new administration’s ambitious goals, how does the NTA fit into addressing these national challenges?

JM: One of our immediate concerns was the cost of project delays. Delays not only affect service delivery but result in real financial losses. This is why the board has taken a firm stance on execution and accountability. If a project is budgeted for completion within a financial year, it must be delivered in that time. If not, we need to ask hard questions why? Who is responsible? And they must be held accountable.

Previously, projects could drag on for years with no consequences. Costs would double, and no one would be answerable. We have changed that. The current board enforces clear frameworks and consequence management. If procurement teams or project managers deviate from the framework and introduce risks, there must be consequences. We made it clear: this culture of impunity ends under our watch.

Leadership should be about service. When we took office, we made an intentional shift from being a board that sits in a room and signs papers and we engaged staff and visited training centres. We wanted to understand the challenges on the ground before making decisions. That gave our decisions context and credibility.

We also introduced the idea of board accountability. Like a State of the Nation address, the board now communicates to staff, updating them on what’s being done. It’s part of our commitment to transparency and building a culture that supports NTA’s mandate.

Of course, not everyone likes this new approach. Some people who were comfortable in the old system are resisting change. But that’s the price of reform – if you want real change, you have to expect some pushback.

ED: You’ve faced criticism around the composition of the board amid allegations that it lacks the right skills, and that the minister failed to meet legal requirements regarding private sector representation. How do you respond?

JM: Appointments are above my pay grade, so I won’t comment on the minister’s role. But from where I sit, the board has a balanced skill set. Some members come from the TVET sector, others from industry. Yes, not all are from the exact sectors prescribed in the founding Act, but the composition is functional and effective. That’s what matters for governance.

ED: There’s growing debate over the dual role of entities like NTA. Critics argue it’s problematic to be both a player and referee. How do you see this?

JM: It’s a valid question, and this issue is not unique to NTA. You see the same duality in other state-owned entities like Namport, which regulates ports while also operating them.

This debate comes from economic theory which suggests governments should ideally regulate rather than operate. But that depends on the level of development. In countries like Namibia, the private sector may not yet have the capacity to fully take over. In such cases, the government must fill the gap to ensure critical services are delivered.

Take MTC, for example. If the government had withdrawn before the private telecom sector matured, many Namibians would’ve been left behind. The same applies to vocational training.

So yes, NTA is both regulator and operator for now. But as the private sector grows stronger, government can gradually step back and focus on regulation. That conversation is valid but the timing must be right.

ED: You have spoken a lot about culture change. What is the legacy you want this board to leave?

JM: Our goal is simple: to leave behind an institution that is more effective, transparent, and responsive than one we found – an NTA that delivers real value to the Namibian people.

We’ve introduced a culture of questioning, of holding people accountable, of refusing to rubber-stamp decisions without scrutiny. If a report comes to the board, we no longer accept it at face value. We seek independent assurances, cross-reference facts, and engage other stakeholders. That’s how good governance works.

Of course, in the process, we have stepped on toes. But we accept that as part of the job. If you’re cleaning house, expect dust.