At the beginning of January, the Office of the Prime Minister announced the appointment of executive directors (EDs) across various government ministries.
At face value, the announcement signaled action, reform and a willingness to strengthen public administration.
However, on closer scrutiny, the exercise appeared less like renewal and more like rotational grazing – a familiar movement of the same individuals across ministries, with only a handful of new faces introduced into the system.
While some executive directors were elevated to accounting officer status and others were stripped of such responsibilities, the overall approach raises important questions on governance that deserve public reflection.
If the objective of the reshuffle was to enhance accountability, curb corruption, and improve service delivery, the method chosen needs to be interrogated honestly and critically.
PRIME CONCERNS
Firstly, the reshuffling seems to be informed by concerns surrounding alleged corruption, inefficiency, or incompetence.
If this is the case, a fundamental question arises: why move instead of remove?
Rotating an official suspected of underperformance or maladministration from one ministry to another does not eliminate the problem; it merely relocates it.
In some instances, it risks spreading institutional weaknesses across government.
Accountability should not be symbolic.
Where there is credible evidence of failure or misconduct, decisive corrective action – including removal – is more effective than administrative recycling.
Secondly, executive directors are not ceremonial figures.
They are the primary administrative heads of ministries, equivalent to permanent secretaries, entrusted with translating political direction into operational reality.
In principle, these positions are merit-based appointments.
This brings into sharp focus the question of suitability and sectoral relevance.
How multi-qualified are the appointees to seamlessly transition between vastly different portfolios?
There is a significant distinction between transferable management skills and sector-specific expertise.
While individuals with backgrounds in management sciences, public administration, or economics may adapt across ministries with relative ease, this flexibility does not automatically extend to highly specialised sectors.
An executive director with professional training and experience in the medical field may struggle to provide effective leadership in the immigration, safety or security portfolios.
The same applies to fields such as media and communication, justice, labour relations, or national security, where contextual knowledge and sectoral depth are indispensable.
SQUARE PEGS
The effectiveness of government suffers when square pegs are forced into round holes.
If rotation is unavoidable, then it should at least be guided by relevance, competency mapping, and institutional continuity.
Otherwise, the state risks weakening ministries by stripping them of leadership that understands their technical, legal and operational complexities.
Where suitability cannot be assured, removal, not reassignment, should be considered.
Thirdly, the continued reliance on appointments rather than open applications raises concerns about transparency and public confidence.
In an era where citizens increasingly demand openness and accountability, why not subject executive director positions to competitive bidding processes with publicly televised interviews?
Such an approach would not only enhance legitimacy but also allow the public to assess the vision, competence and ethical grounding of those entrusted with managing public resources.
Open processes deter patronage, widen the talent pool and signal a genuine commitment to meritocracy.
MOVEMENT VS PROGRESS
Fourthly, the decision to appoint two accounting executive directors in the ministry of justice and labour relations is a commendable and forward-thinking move.
It acknowledges the complexity of managing multiple votes and the administrative burden that often delays service delivery.
However, this innovation raises another question: why limit it to one ministry?
Many ministries operate multiple votes and face similar bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Extending this model across government could significantly reduce approval delays, improve efficiency, and enhance financial oversight.
In general, a more deliberate and holistic approach must be taken to executive director appointments.
Rotation should not be mistaken for reform, and movement should not be confused with progress.
Without clear criteria, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, reshuffles risk entrenching the very problems they are meant to solve.
Public administration is the backbone of state performance.
Executive directors must be appointed, retained, or removed in ways that strengthen institutions rather than merely rearrange personnel.
If Namibia is serious about fighting corruption, improving governance, and accelerating service delivery, the era of rotational grazing must give way to principled, transparent and competency-driven leadership.
Shepherd Nyambe is Namibia’s youngest award-winning and published researcher, a Sustainable Development Goals action advocate, and political science scholar. All views shared in this piece are the opinion of the author only; Shepherdmn01@gmail.com
In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch.
It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.
The Namibian uses AI tools to assist with improved quality, accuracy and efficiency,
while
maintaining editorial oversight and journalistic integrity.
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!