What makes you similar to me as I write this is your choice of authenticity. If you opt for perfect pretense, then you are exactly the person I want to reach with this article because I intend to challenge your perspective. If you are in leadership, bearing the burden of discrimination and the fear of living authentically because the law offers no protection, then this piece is meant to empower you.

The rallying cry is clear:

“Give them human rights,” as Fela Kuti demanded in his track Beasts of No Nation.

Men’s authenticity in boardrooms is increasingly questioned in a country where minority sexual orientations are ridiculed rather than protected. In Namibia, discrimination is illegal. The Constitution, as the supreme law, explicitly prohibits discrimination on many grounds. 

Article 10 clearly states that discrimination is prohibited based on sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed, or social and economic status. Yet one distinct group of people has become prominent in street conversations and whisper networks, sexual orientation, a category that the Namibian Constitution does not explicitly recognise or protect.

As a result, a troubling reality emerges in leadership spaces. Some leaders in boardrooms and senior echelons of power who belong to sexual minorities present themselves as heterosexual when they are not. They live and lead as heterosexual men in public, while privately identifying as homosexual, or in some cases, struggling deeply with gender identity. This is not necessarily a choice made out of malice or deception, but one shaped by fear, ridicule, and the absence of legal recognition.

Perhaps if the Constitution explicitly protected sexual orientation from discrimination, such leaders would lead with greater transparency. Instead, what we observe is the emergence of dual personalities in leadership. One personality leads publicly as heterosexual, socially acceptable, and culturally safe. The other remains hidden, suppressed, and unacknowledged, even though it reflects the leader’s true orientation. 

This internal split does not disappear at the boardroom door. It follows leaders into decision making spaces, shaping interactions, trust, and authority.

History teaches us that societies have constantly ridiculed certain groups for no reason other than their identity. Racially darker people were oppressed for the colour of their skin. Women were discriminated against simply for being women. 

Over time, these injustices were confronted, barriers were dismantled, and the law stepped in to offer protection. In Namibia, the Constitution now explicitly recognises and safeguards these groups. Although prejudice still exists, the law stands firmly on its side.

Yet society continues to evolve and fragment into new groupings. Groups subdivide into further groups. 

In this contemporary reality, homosexual men exist openly in society, even if not openly in law. They are everywhere and anywhere in Namibia. They could be colleagues, neighbours, family members, or leaders. 

The difficulty is that many cannot openly live as who they truly are because their sexual orientation is ridiculed socially and legally not protected.

The problem becomes particularly acute in boardrooms. Hypothetically, but realistically, divisions arise amongst men when some are secretly homosexual or identify as women yet operate publicly as heterosexual men with heterosexual families. This disconnect breeds tension, inconsistency, and mistrust. 

Leadership becomes compromised by hypocrisy, not because individuals are homosexual, but because they are forced to lead unauthentically. Leaders are expected to bring their full, honest selves to the table, yet the legal framework discourages such honesty.

A heterosexual man is protected by law simply for being a man. A gay man is also protected, but only as a man, never as a gay man. This distinction matters. It creates a leadership environment where some men are legally safe to be themselves, while others must hide fundamental aspects of who they are to avoid discrimination.

As a result, society is robbed of authentic leadership. We are led by men who may be homosexual but are compelled to perform heterosexuality in public life. Even when they wish to be authentic, the law offers little reassurance that they will be protected. This lack of legal recognition spills into governance, relationships, and decision making at the highest levels.

The question that remains for readers is uncomfortable but straightforward. Should a society accept unauthentic leadership because leaders fear discrimination, or should the law evolve to recognise and protect them fully?

In the end, it is society that bears the consequences of leaders struggling with unresolved sexual identity fears, navigating power while hiding their truth.

*David Junias is a thought leader. He can be reached at davidjunias@gmail.com.