By Jorge de Morais – General Manager | Energy Services | Industrial Strategy | African Development Advocate
At the 2025 Mining Expo in Windhoek, Namibia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industrialisation, Mines and Energy, Natangwe Ithete, posed a question that went straight to the heart of the country’s economic future:
“When should we implement 51% local ownership in our mining sector? Ten years ago? Yesterday? Or 200 years from now?”
The idea is as bold as it is contentious. On the one hand, Namibia, like many resource-rich African states, faces the paradox of abundant natural wealth alongside deep inequality. On the other, the mining industry remains a primary source of foreign direct investment (FDI), jobs and export earnings. Any major shift in ownership policy carries both political appeal and economic risk.
Namibia’s Gini coefficient is among the highest in the world. Despite decades of production, much of the value generated from mining still flows abroad, leaving the domestic economy with a narrow slice of the gains, primarily wages, taxes and limited procurement. Advocates of 51% ownership argue that this imbalance must be corrected if Namibia is to achieve meaningful wealth redistribution and economic sovereignty.
Yet the critics are vocal. Senior industry figures, have warned that a rigid ownership threshold could deter investment, especially in an era when capital is mobile and mining companies have alternative jurisdictions with friendlier terms. Others point out that local capital markets lack the depth to finance large-scale mining operations without foreign partners, and that equity without operational capability risks creating nominal ownership without control.
The debate is not new. Across Africa, resource nationalism has cycled through waves of enthusiasm and retreat. Where such policies have succeeded, they have been implemented gradually, alongside parallel efforts to develop local skills, supplier networks and processing capacity. Where they have failed, they have often been rushed, poorly planned, or captured by small elites, leaving the majority no better off.
Namibia’s challenge, therefore, is not whether 51% local ownership is a legitimate aspiration, it is, but whether the institutional, financial and industrial base exists to make it work sustainably. This requires a roadmap built on six pillars:
- securing international, regional and domestic offtakers to reduce dependency on raw exports;
- closing the skills gap through targeted vocational programmes;
- structuring equipment ownership transfer from foreign to local stakeholders;
- mobilising domestic capital through pension funds and investment vehicles;
- building effective governance that treats private enterprise as a partner; and
- establishing rigorous control over resource mapping and export flows.
There is also a regional dimension. Alone, Namibia’s mineral output may not justify high-value processing plants. Together with Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, however, there is potential to create a Southern African free zone for mineral beneficiation, pooling resources, infrastructure and markets to achieve economies of scale.
In this light, the Deputy Prime Minister’s question , “When should we start?”, becomes less a matter of political timing and more a matter of readiness. Preparation must begin immediately, but implementation should follow only when the foundations are strong enough to support it.
The danger is not in aiming for 51% local ownership. The danger lies in enforcing it before the country can truly capitalise on it. Done well, the policy could mark a turning point in Namibia’s economic history. Done poorly, it could reinforce the very inequalities it seeks to dismantle.
In the end, the measure of success will not be the percentage itself, but whether it delivers what it promises: broader participation, deeper capabilities and a fairer share of Namibia’s natural wealth for its people.
