A reported directive by the Cabinet to reinstate former Meatco CEO Mwilima Mushokabanji – after the board chose not to renew his contract – has ignited a firestorm.
It represents a fundamental breach of the principles of administrative justice, legal accountability and the constitutional separation of powers.
The Cabinet’s interference in the issue is not merely inappropriate, it does not align with the Meat Corporation of Namibia Act of 2001.
If left unchecked, it risks eroding the very foundation of Namibia’s constitutional democracy.
THE LAW IS CLEAR
The legislation governing the Meat Corporation of Namibia (Meatco) is not ambiguous.
The Meatco Act states that the appointment of the chief executive officer (CEO) is the sole responsibility of the board, not the Cabinet.
The provision reads: “The board shall appoint a person (other than a director) as chief executive officer of the corporation.”
It is not a suggestion. It is a statutory mandate.
Furthermore, the act (section 12) reinforces that only the board has the authority to remove a CEO, and only after that CEO has been given an opportunity to be heard.
These safeguards are not procedural niceties, they are constitutional guarantees flowing directly from the Namibian Constitution, which ensures that all administrative action must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY
The Cabinet is reportedly attempting to compel the new Meatco board to reappoint Mushokabanji, a move that not only undermines the board’s independence but also tramples on the foundational principle of the rule of law.
This is not governance, it is executive overreach.
It must be understood that Namibia is governed by constitutional supremacy, not executive supremacy.
Any action taken by any organ of state must conform to it or it is invalid.
Cabinet intervention, unless supported by a lawful process initiated and led by the board, falls short of this requirement.
The principle of legality, a cornerstone of administrative law, dictates that all exercises of public power must be authorised by law.
If the Cabinet attempts to ‘dictate’ an appointment outside the framework provided by legislation, it acts ultra vires, beyond its legal authority.
LEGAL PRECEDENT CAN’T BE IGNORED
Namibian courts have consistently affirmed this position.
In Government of Namibia v Sikunda, the Supreme Court held that the right to administrative justice (under article 18) is not merely a common law privilege but a fundamental constitutional right.
In Chairperson of the Immigration Selection Board v Frank, the court reaffirmed that public bodies must act within the bounds of their statutory powers.
Meatco’s board is an independent statutory body.
It is not a rubber stamp for political instructions.
The Cabinet cannot legally compel it to appoint a specific individual without breaching the law and the Constitution.
Furthermore, the Public Enterprises Governance Act of 2019 does not give the Cabinet the power to appoint CEOs.
It allows for the Cabinet to approve board recommendations, not to initiate or impose them.
It is a crucial distinction.
What we appear to be witnessing is a Cabinet that seemingly appears to believe it can override statutory procedures because it prefers a different outcome.
That amounts to unlawful interference.
If allowed to proceed, it will set a dangerous precedent.
It sends a message that board decisions can be overridden on political whim, which undermines principles of corporate governance and accountability.
More troubling, it creates a perception that political loyalty, not legal procedure or merit, determines leadership in public institutions.
If challenged in court, the Cabinet’s directive is likely to be struck down as unlawful.
A MOMENT OF RECKONING
What we face is not just a legal question but a democratic one.
Do we still honour the separation of powers?
Do we still believe in the rule of law, where no one, not even the Cabinet, is above legal constraints?
Or are we willing to let political convenience erode our legal institutions?
The answer to these questions will define not only the outcome at Meatco but the future of administrative integrity in Namibia.
The silence from parliament, civil society and legal watchdogs is deafening.
If the public does not demand accountability now, we risk allowing this potential constitutional breach to become a political norm.
The Meatco board must stand its ground.
It must defend its statutory mandate – not only for the sake of Meatco, but for the credibility of every board overseeing a public institution in Namibia.
The Cabinet must withdraw its directive.
It must follow the law, initiate a new recruitment process, submit his candidacy like any other applicant, and allow the board to make a decision in accordance with the law.
LITMUS TEST FOR DEMOCRACY
The rule of law is not optional. It is the bedrock of Namibia’s constitutional democracy.
The only path that respects both the rule of law and the dignity of governance is one where the Cabinet respects the autonomy of the board and upholds the Constitution.
The board must assert its legal mandate even if it means resisting political pressure. Civil society must speak up and demand transparency.
This moment is a litmus test for Namibia’s democracy.
The way forward is clear: We must reinforce a culture where power is exercised, not as privilege but as duty under law.
- Brian Ngutjinazo is a final-year LLB Student at the University of Namibia.
Stay informed with The Namibian – your source for credible journalism. Get in-depth reporting and opinions for
only N$85 a month. Invest in journalism, invest in democracy –
Subscribe Now!
