Energy lawyer Shakwa Nyambe says Namibia must urgently amend its petroleum legislation to prevent regulatory paralysis, restore investor confidence and avoid delaying Final Investment Decisions on major offshore oil developments, including the Venus discovery.
In a detailed analysis of the proposed amendments to the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act No. 2 of 1991, Nyambe argues that the existing framework, crafted for a period of limited exploration activity, is no longer fit for a country on the cusp of becoming a petroleum producer.
He warns that failure to modernise the law risks turning legal uncertainty itself into a barrier to development at a time when multi-billion-dollar projects are approaching critical decision points.
At the centre of the proposed reforms is the creation of an Upstream Petroleum Unit within the Office of the President, alongside a fundamental redistribution of powers currently held by the Minister of Industries, Mines and Energy. Under the amendments, most operational and licensing authorities would shift away from the Minister to a technocratic Director-General of the new Unit.
In contrast, strategic oversight — including authority over petroleum agreements and royalties — would vest in the President.
Nyambe says the rationale is to separate policy from regulation, insulating technical decisions from political discretion while accelerating approvals.
He notes that the current Petroleum Act concentrates wide discretionary powers in the Minister, a structure that was workable when Namibia’s offshore potential was unproven but which now risks bottlenecks as development complexity increases.
“Ministerial decision-making is exposed to political pressures and competing portfolio demands,” he argues, adding that a dedicated regulator can act more swiftly and objectively.
The amendments would also formally replace the Petroleum Commissioner with a Deputy Director-General within the Upstream Petroleum Unit, transferring all statutory references and enforcement functions into the new structure.
The Director-General would become the primary licensing authority for exploration and production licences, work programmes, budgets and field development plans. At the same time, the Deputy Director-General would manage technical oversight and administration.
Both positions would be appointed by the President under Article 32(6) of the Constitution and required to declare assets and business interests, with removal powers retained at the highest level to enforce accountability.
Nyambe acknowledges that placing the regulator in the Presidency raises legitimate questions about concentration of power, but argues that the model is neither novel nor inherently political.
He points to international precedents, including Senegal’s COS-PETROGAS committee under the President, Sierra Leone’s Petroleum Directorate housed in the Presidency, Ghana’s Petroleum Commission, and Nigeria’s Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission established under the 2021 Petroleum Industry Act.
In the United Arab Emirates, he notes, strategic oversight of oil and gas is exercised by the Supreme Council for Financial and Economic Affairs rather than a standalone petroleum ministry.
In each case, the objective has been to strengthen coordination, professionalism, and accountability during sectoral transitions.
According to Nyambe, the Namibian proposal follows the same logic: elevating strategic oversight to resolve cross-cutting issues — such as environmental permitting, fiscal policy, marine approvals and local content — while leaving routine regulatory decisions to specialised professionals.
He stresses that the President would not be involved in day-to-day regulation but would act as a trustee of the nation’s petroleum wealth, particularly regarding royalties and long-term revenue policy.
A major driver of the reforms is the need for transparent and accountable monetisation of oil resources. Nyambe argues that Namibia must put governance safeguards in place before production begins to avoid the mismanagement and inequality that have plagued some resource-rich states.
He highlights the government’s intention to strengthen oversight of royalties, align petroleum revenues with national development plans such as NDP6 and the Harambee Prosperity Plan II, and potentially channel funds through mechanisms like the Welwitschia Fund.
The proposed law would also require the Upstream Petroleum Unit to publish annual public reports, aligning Namibia with international transparency standards such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
The analysis also highlights the practical consequences of delay.
Nyambe notes that Namibia has not issued new petroleum exploration licences since 2022, with applications effectively on hold as investors await clarity on the regulatory framework.
He warns that prolonged uncertainty could prompt international oil companies to redirect capital to jurisdictions with clearer rules, eroding Namibia’s competitive position just as global competition for upstream investment intensifies.
He further cautions that delayed reform carries economic and political risks.
Every year of delay in reaching first oil represents lost revenue, deferred job creation and postponed infrastructure investment.
Public expectations have risen sharply following recent discoveries, and Nyambe warns that if legal uncertainty is perceived as the obstacle to progress, it could undermine public confidence and the sector’s social licence to operate.
In this context, Nyambe says the amendments are not simply a legal housekeeping exercise but a strategic necessity. He explicitly warns that continued uncertainty around the Petroleum Act could delay Final Investment Decisions on significant projects, including TotalEnergies’ Venus development, as companies are reluctant to commit capital while the rules governing royalties, licensing authority and regulatory oversight remain in flux.
Nyambe concludes that the proposed amendments strike a deliberate balance between speed and safeguards.
By empowering a dedicated Upstream Petroleum Unit, clarifying lines of authority, embedding transparency measures and elevating strategic oversight, Namibia would signal that it is institutionally prepared to govern its petroleum resources responsibly.
Failure to act, he argues, risks allowing legal inertia — rather than geology or economics — to determine the pace of Namibia’s oil future.
