By Zenzi N. //Awases
Namibia may soon welcome its next major gold mine.
The Kokoseb Gold Project, situated between Uis and Okombahe in the Erongo Region, is advancing rapidly.
A joint venture holds it, with Australian-listed WIA Gold Limited owning 80% and Namibia’s state-owned Epangelo Mining Company holding the remaining 20%.
WIA, as operator, has completed the Definitive Feasibility Study, reporting a mineral resource of approximately 3.78 million ounces of gold, a projected 14-year mine life and a base-case post-tax net present value of US$1.214 billion.
The company has since received firm commitments for an A$125 million placement, subject to shareholder approval. It says the placement (together with a proposed US$360 million debt facility, a proposed US$15 million equity subscription and existing cash) would complete the funding package required to take Kokoseb through construction to first gold, targeted for the fourth quarter of 2028.
The numbers are impressive. They show how much gold the project may produce, how much capital it will require, how quickly investors may recover their money, and how much value the project could generate.
But another set of numbers deserves equal attention: 18 homesteads and 43 project-affected people who, according to public reporting on the project’s feasibility study, may experience physical or economic displacement.
What happens to them?
This is not an argument against the Kokoseb Gold Project. Namibia needs responsible investment. We need new mines, employment, economic activity, skills development and a broader productive base. A project of Kokoseb’s scale could make an important contribution to the Erongo Region and to the national economy.
But the true measure of responsible mining is not found only in ounces, production profiles and investor returns. It is also found in what happens to the people whose homes, land and livelihoods stand in the path of development.
On 7 August 2026, members of the Katora community submitted a petition through the Dâures constituency office. In that petition, they identify themselves as the host community on whose ancestral land the Kokoseb project is being developed.
Their position is not anti-mining. On the contrary, the petition expressly states that the community supports responsible mining and investment. What it asks is that mining bring lasting benefits to the people whose land, livelihoods and environment are directly affected.
At the centre of the petition is a straightforward legal question: compensation for interference with the community’s surface rights.
Section 52(2) of Namibia’s Minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act, 1992, establishes liability for damage caused by prospecting or mining operations to land, water sources, cultivation, buildings and other structures. The petition specifically calls for compliance with this provision.
The question now is whether all affected rights, assets, and livelihoods have been identified, and whether the process for valuing and addressing those impacts is transparent, inclusive, and complete before the Environmental Clearance Certificate decision is made.
Nor would a lasting arrangement be unprecedented.
Namibia’s mining history includes surface-rights and land-use arrangements concluded decades ago that continue to be honoured today. The Rössing case demonstrates that obligations arising from the use of land for mining need not be treated as once-off transactions that disappear when ownership, leadership or generations change. Such arrangements can endure alongside a mine and continue to recognise the rights that made mineral development possible.
If Namibia has sustained such an arrangement before, there is no principled reason why an appropriate and durable arrangement cannot be negotiated with the Katora community today.
This obligation is also not static. Namibia’s Minerals Act is currently under review, and a version of the revised legislation has been circulating for discussion. Communities holding rights over communal land should not be treated as incidental to that process, but as parties squarely within its contemplation.
Beyond compensation, the community is calling for recognition as the legitimate host community, meaningful consultation, a community benefit-sharing agreement and participation in the employment, procurement, skills-development, enterprise-development and investment opportunities created by the mine. It has also requested a 5% free-carried equity interest in the project.
That request raises a broader question that Namibia cannot avoid indefinitely.
Article 100 of the Namibian Constitution provides that land, water and natural resources above and below the surface belong to the State where they are not otherwise lawfully owned. This establishes the principle of sovereign ownership of Namibia’s mineral resources.
Epangelo Mining Company was created to give practical and commercial expression to greater state participation in the mining industry. Its 20% interest in Kokoseb can therefore be understood as representing the national interest in a resource that, constitutionally, belongs to the State.
But national participation and host-community participation are not the same thing.
Article 100 answers the question of sovereign ownership of the mineral resource. It does not, on its own, answer what happens to the people living on the surface, whose homes, livelihoods and access to land may be disrupted so that the resource can be extracted.
Epangelo’s participation may create value for Namibia collectively, but it does not automatically guarantee that the Katora community, which will bear the project’s most immediate physical and social costs, will participate directly in that value.
This is not an argument against Epangelo’s 20% interest. State participation in Namibia’s mineral wealth is both legitimate and necessary. The question is whether national participation is sufficient when a clearly identifiable host community will experience physical or economic displacement.
The State’s constitutional ownership of mineral resources should not make the people living above those resources invisible. If anything, state custodianship should impose a higher responsibility to ensure that mineral development serves both the national interest and the rights and future of the communities most directly affected.
Namibia must therefore consider whether, and through what mechanism, host communities should share directly in mining projects developed on communal land. National ownership and community participation need not compete. A responsible mineral-development framework should accommodate both.
Each of the Katora community’s demands will need to be considered on its legal, commercial and policy merits. But beneath them lies a principle that should not be controversial: people should not become invisible simply because valuable minerals have been discovered beneath or near the land on which they live.
The question also extends beyond Kokoseb. As Namibia’s mineral-development pipeline expands, more projects will intersect with communal land, traditional livelihoods and host communities.
If these questions are settled quietly and inconsistently, project by project, communities with less organisation or visibility than Katora may find themselves confronted with decisions they had little role in shaping. Kokoseb gives Namibia an opportunity to begin developing a principled and transparent approach to host-community participation before an inequitable pattern becomes entrenched.
The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment has reportedly been submitted to the government for a Record of Decision, with the Environmental Clearance Certificate still pending. This makes the present moment critically important.
Environmental approval should not be treated as proof that every social question has been resolved. Where displacement is anticipated, the quality of the resettlement and livelihood-restoration process is not a secondary matter to be addressed after approval. It is part of the evidence on which a responsible approval decision should rest.
Before issuing an ECC, the public should understand how the anticipated physical and economic displacement will be addressed.
Has every affected household been identified and meaningfully consulted? What land, grazing access, water sources, homes, structures or livelihoods may be lost? Will suitable replacement land be available? How will affected people be supported during and after relocation? What mechanisms will exist if households disagree with valuations or proposed arrangements?
Most importantly, will the affected people have a meaningful role in decisions about their own future?
Consultation cannot merely mean informing people that a decision has already been made. Nor should compensation be understood only as payment for visible structures.
In rural communal areas, land supports interconnected systems of livelihood, identity, family, culture, grazing and access to natural resources. Moving a household may therefore involve far more than replacing a building. Economic displacement can also occur even when a person’s home remains standing, if access to the land, water or natural resources supporting that household is restricted or lost.
These questions do not presume wrongdoing by the developer, the government, the traditional authority or any other party. They ask whether the process is sufficiently transparent and complete to justify approval of a project with permanent consequences.
Kokoseb’s development plans provide investors with detailed projections extending over the life of the mine. The people in its path deserve comparable clarity about their future.
Where will they live? What will happen to their livelihoods? How will their losses be identified and valued? What benefits will remain after the gold has been extracted? And how will they participate in the decisions that answer these questions?
The Katora community has adopted the words: “Nothing about us without us.”
That principle should not be regarded as a threat to investment. It is the foundation of a durable social licence to operate. Mines built through transparent engagement and genuine partnership are more likely to enjoy community trust, operational stability and lasting legitimacy.
The Kokoseb mine may proceed. With its development plans well advanced, its proposed funding package largely assembled and first gold targeted for 2028, it probably will.
The question is not simply whether Namibia will gain another gold mine.
It is whether the people who must carry its greatest human cost will also share meaningfully in its promise.
Before Kokoseb is approved, that question deserves an answer.
Zenzi N. //Awases is a geologist and independent mining consultant based in Windhoek. She is not affiliated with the Kokoseb Gold Project or WIA Gold Limited and writes in her personal capacity.
