By David Junias and Hosea Shishiveni
In the landscape of industrial relations, few events have exposed the structural vulnerabilities of our governance as starkly as the ongoing NamibMills legal strike. As observers of the socio-political fabric of Namibia, we are rarely left genuinely surprised by the friction between capital and labour. Yet, the recent briefing by the leadership of the Namibia Retail and Allied Workers Union (NARETU) following their engagement with the Ministry of Justice and Labour Relations was a watershed moment not because of what was resolved, but because of what was admitted.
The NARETU leadership, in a candid address to the media and the public, described a meeting with the Minister of Labour that can only be characterized as an exercise in institutional powerlessness. According to the union, the Minister the very custodian of the Labour Act of 2007 stated that he lacked the legal grounds to compel NamibMills to meet employee demands, nor did he have the authority to tell employees what they should accept. While the union leader expressed a polite appreciation for the Minister’s willingness to listen, his subsequent conclusion was a stinging indictment of our current administrative system: “We are left with no option but to approach the office of high authority [the Presidency].”
This statement should send a shiver through the spine of every Namibian professional, lawmaker, and citizen. It reveals a crisis with three distinct faces: either the Department of Labour is technically incapable of mediating such matters, it lacks the legislative teeth to act as a true custodian of the Labour Act, or we are witnessing a catastrophic failure of “strategic fit” in ministerial appointments.
The immediate question that arises is why a dispute involving 700 employees at a private company should require the intervention of the Head of State. We have a Ministry of Justice and Labour Relation. We have a Labour Commissioner. We have a Labour Act. If these structures are bypassed in favour of the President’s office, it suggests that the institutions we have built are regarded as mere decorative facades rather than functional pillars of governance.
When the President appoints a Minister, that individual is tasked to lead, to decide, and to rule within their specific jurisdiction. If a Minister is reduced to the role of a sympathetic listener with no power to influence a resolution, we must ask: Has the appointing authority selected leaders with the capacity to navigate the complexities of modern industrial warfare? Or is it time to review these appointments to ensure that “strategic fit” the alignment of skill, authority, and decisiveness is restored to our ministries before it is too late?
Labour disputes should be resolved through the mechanisms of the relevant ministry and, if necessary, the scrutiny of Parliament (law-makers). They should not, as a matter of principle, reach the President’s desk. To allow this precedent to continue is to admit that our ministerial system is in a state of atrophy.
The NamibMills strike is a symptom of a much larger ailment: the obsolescence of the Labour Act of 2007. In the nearly two decades since its inception, the global and local economic landscape has undergone a seismic shift. New trends in employment, the rising cost of living, and the evolving expectations of the workforce have left the current Act struggling to keep pace.
What we have learned from this strike is that there is a profound lack of “deciding power” and knowledge in enforcing the existing law. The Ministry appears to be operating in a vacuum, unable to interpret the Act in a way that provides “informed decision-making points” for both employers and employees. Namibia is currently unprepared to tackle intense, large-scale labour matters.
Consider the hypothetical, yet terrifying, scenario of an “aggregate strike” a total nation-wide withdrawal of labour across all sectors, from the mines to the taxi industry. If our government officials are paralyzed by a single strike at one (albeit crucial) company, how ready are we for a national economic standstill? The current institutional inertia suggests that we are not ready at all.
One of the primary reasons the NamibMills struggle has been allowed to fester is the tendency of professionals and politicians to view labour issues through a partisan lens. Too many treat these strikes as the exclusive responsibility of the ruling party. This is a dangerous fallacy.
Labour stability is a shared national responsibility. It is an issue for every Member of Parliament, regardless of political affiliation. When the economy suffers due to a prolonged strike, it does not only impact SWAPO; it impacts the aggregate economy, the national food security, and our international standing as an investment destination. We need a holistic, non-partisan approach where political leaders across the spectrum collaborate on viable solutions to prevent our country from entering a “state of emergency” in industrial relations.
In the specific case of NamibMills, we must recognize that they are a cornerstone of our economy. Preserving the viability of such a company is essential. However, preservation cannot come at the cost of the dignity of the workforce.
From the employer’s perspective, there is a “duty of care” to provide decent employment and fair wages. The reports of unfair salary alignment where individuals in the same positions are compensated differently must be addressed and abolished. Incentives and fair compensation are not just “costs”; they are investments in the stability of the company. Conversely, employees have a duty to ensure that work is done and to protect the economy by showing up once a fair middle ground is established.
The current Cabinet is failing to address this crisis with the urgency it demands. We propose that the government immediately call for a Nation-Wide Labour Law Review Consultation. This should not be a closed-door meeting of bureaucrats, but a transparent forum where unions, employers, legal experts, and civil society can bring their lived experiences to the table to modernize the Labour Act.
We must move away from a system where “listening” is the only tool in a Minister’s arsenal. We need a legislative framework that empowers officials to make binding interventions and provide clear pathways for resolution before a dispute escalates to the point of national concern.
We submit this case not to the hands of a single political party, but to the collective wisdom of our legislative and law-making bodies. The world is evolving, and Namibia cannot afford to remain stagnant. If we continue to ignore the outdated nature of our labour laws and the incapacity of our appointed officials, we will one day find ourselves in a state of chaos we are unable to control.
Namibia must learn from the Namibmills strike. The Namibmills strike is a warning. The ultimate goal should be a balanced system that protects workers’ rights while ensuring that businesses can operate sustainably and contribute to national development.
If the lessons from the Namib Mills strike are taken seriously, Namibia can emerge from this moment with stronger institutions, more effective labour laws, and a more resilient economy. If they are ignored, similar disputes may continue to escalate until they test the limits of the country’s economic and political stability. The choice lies with lawmakers, policymakers, and all stakeholders in Namibia’s labour ecosystem.
David Junias and Hosea Shishiveni are Namibian thought-leaders. They can be reached at davidjunias@gmail.com and hoseasn8@gmail.com. The views expressed are their own.
