The question of whether Namibia should decriminalise the importation of container fuel bought by Namibians from Angola is a subject of much debate. Critical to the debate are nuances: Does the debate raise a pragmatic necessity or a dangerous policy mistake? 

The issue has become even more pronounced following the global sharp rise in oil prices triggered by the 2025/2026 oil war involving Iran, the United States of America, and Israel. The war exposed Namibia’s dependence on imported fuel and intensified public pressure for access to cheaper Angolan fuel. Against this background, the Namibian government announced a major fuel increase effective 1 April 2026. Petrol rose by N$2.50 per litre, while diesel increased by N$4 per litre. 

The increase in fuel prices (globally) left everyone looking for an alternative. In northern Namibia, such an alternative is the “Ngungula trade.” Ngungula trade involves Namibians crossing into Angola to purchase heavily subsidised fuel and transporting it back into Namibia in containers for resale or personal use. 

For years, the state has approached the Ngungula trade almost exclusively through criminalisation, arrests, and confiscation. Notwithstanding the increased law enforcement operations, fuel continues to flow across the border in large quantities. This persistence raises an important question: if a law is routinely broken by thousands of people, because it no longer reflects social and economic realities, should the law itself be reconsidered?

Criminalisation of the Ngungula trade punishes poverty rather than crime. 

Most participants in the Ngungula trade are not sophisticated organised criminals. The April 2026 fuel increase has reinforced this argument. For low-income households, taxi operators, small businesses, and rural communities, the new pump price may become unaffordable. 

Diesel is especially important in northern Namibia because it powers transport, farming equipment, and generators. A N$4 increase per litre therefore affects not only motorists, but also food prices, transport costs, and the broader cost of living. In this context, the attraction of the relatively affordable Angolan fuel becomes even stronger. 

Many Namibians may feel that the law leaves them with an impossible choice: either comply and suffer severe economic hardship or buy container fuel illegally to survive. In this sense, the law criminalises an act born largely of economic desperation. This creates a legal and moral imbalance. The state appears to punish survival strategies while failing to address the structural causes that make them necessary.

Potential for decriminalisation – when a commodity is in high demand, but it is inflated and scarce, informal networks inevitably emerge. The illegal nature of the Ngungula trade has created fertile ground for corrupt practices. Border officials and local intermediaries may exploit the system through bribery, selective enforcement, and collusion. Decriminalising limited quantities of container fuel for personal use could reduce opportunities for corruption by moving the Ngungula trade into a transparent, regulated framework. Instead of chasing small-scale Ngungula traders through endless law enforcement operations, the state could establish clear rules: how much fuel may be imported, by whom, how often, and under what conditions. A permit system or small-scale licensing regime could allow border communities to import modest quantities legally while still preventing large-scale commercial smuggling.

It is important to note that a law that cannot be effectively enforced risks undermining respect for the legal system. The continued growth of the Ngungula trade despite repeated confiscations and arrests suggests that the current law enforcement strategy is inadequate. 

When citizens see that fuel sellers return to the same locations the day after law enforcement raids, the state begins to look ineffective and disconnected from reality. Decriminalisation, therefore, may not represent surrender. 

It may instead reflect a more realistic and pragmatic approach to an unwinnable enforcement battle. 

If global oil prices remain high and Namibia continues to rely almost entirely on imported fuel, the incentive to buy fuel from Angola will continue to grow. The greater the difference between Namibian and Angolan fuel prices, the greater the profits available to smugglers and the greater the temptation for ordinary citizens.

Notwithstanding the decriminalisation proposal, counterarguments include the claim that the Ngungula trade, if decriminalised, could devastate the formal fuel sector in northern Namibia. Filling stations operate under strict regulations and pay taxes, licensing fees, labour costs, and safety compliance expenses. They also contribute to local employment and municipal revenue. There are also legitimate concerns about the quality and safety of container fuel imported from Angola, ranging from storage, transportation, and distribution. 

Therefore, if the state permits container fuel imported from Angola to compete freely with formal retailers, many filling stations may close. Balancing these interests could yield a deeply paradoxical result: in trying to help less fortunate consumers access affordable fuel, the government may unintentionally destroy the legal industry that sustains local economies.

Towards a middle ground – the debate should not be reduced to a false choice between total criminalisation and unrestricted legalisation. A more balanced approach is possible. 

The government could adopt a middle ground: A controlled decriminalisation model in border regions. Under such a model, allow small quantities of fuel for personal or household use; establish a flexible permit system to regulate who may import fuel and in what quantities; subject imported fuel to modest duties or levies; criminalise large-scale resale without a licence; enforce safety standards for storage and transport; offer border communities special economic concessions recognising their unique circumstances. 

The controlled decriminalisation model would distinguish between survival-based economic activity and organised commercial smuggling. 

It would also acknowledge that people living along the border experience the state differently from people in Windhoek. For many northern communities, the border is not merely a line separating two countries; it is part of everyday economic and social life.

*Ndilipunye Michael Waneipo holds a Master’s of Laws in Marine & Environmental Laws and a Master’s of Policing Practices. He writes in his personal capacity. 

*Pilisano Masake is a scholar at the Namibia University of Science and Technology.