Namibia’s oil and gas sector is entering one of the most critical periods in its history, but even as excitement grows around TotalEnergies’ Venus discovery, a quiet legal storm is forming behind the scenes.
It began when President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah announced that the country’s oil and gas directorate now falls under her office.
To the public, it sounded like strong leadership. But the reality is more complicated, because the law has not changed.
Namibia’s Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act of 1991 remains entirely in force, and it makes the Minister of Mines and Energy the central authority in the petroleum sector.
The Act gives the Minister the power to sign petroleum agreements, issue exploration and production licences, approve field development plans, direct operations in accordance with good oilfield practice, and enforce royalty payments.
Under Section 13, no licence can be issued without a petroleum agreement signed by the Minister. Under Sections 28 to 32, only the Minister can approve and issue a production licence. Under Sections 21 and 31, the Minister approves the technical and operational details for any development plan. Nothing in the Act gives these powers to the President.
The Constitution makes the picture even clearer. It states that only Parliament can change a law it has passed. Neither the President nor the Cabinet can bypass or suspend the Petroleum Act.
Ministers exercise their authority because the law gives it to them. Until Parliament amends that law, those powers stay with the Minister, even if the Minister is serving in an interim or acting capacity.
The Constitution does not distinguish between a full minister and an interim minister. As long as someone is appointed to the portfolio, they hold the full legal authority of that office.
Despite this, the President has created an oil and gas unit in her office. Legally, such a unit may exist, but only in an advisory capacity.
The Constitution allows the President to establish advisory structures to support their understanding of strategic sectors or coordinate government messaging.
The unit can analyse information, prepare policy options, monitor industry trends, and brief the President on issues affecting Venus or other offshore developments. It can influence political thinking, shape Cabinet discussions, and signal the President’s priorities.
But in law, its powers stop there. The unit has no authority to issue licences, approve petroleum agreements, negotiate upstream terms, direct the Petroleum Commissioner, sign field development plans or enforce any part of the Petroleum Act.
Nothing it recommends is legally binding. Its influence is political, not legal. It may carry weight because ministries often respect the Presidency’s views.
Still, it cannot replace the Minister, and any attempt to act beyond its advisory role would be invalid, challengeable, and potentially unconstitutional. As long as it remains advisory, it is lawful. If it oversteps, it would have no legal effect.
This means that despite the President’s public statement, the mines minister still legally controls all key processes in the oil and gas sector.
The Minister remains the only person who can approve the petroleum agreement for Venus, sign the production licence, and authorise the field development plan.
Investors require those signatures before they commit billions of dollars. And until Parliament debates and passes an amendment to shift these powers to the Presidency, nothing changes in law.
This is where Parliament’s stance becomes crucial. If Parliament pushes back on the amendments, the situation becomes even more complicated.
Pushback would mean MPs are either unconvinced of the need to shift regulatory powers to the Presidency, or believe the change is being rushed without proper justification.
In practical terms, Parliament’s resistance freezes the current legal position.
The Minister of Mines and Energy remains the sole lawful authority over licensing, agreements and development approvals, and the Presidency’s attempt to assume control over the sector hits a constitutional wall.
Parliamentary pushback would also expose the tension between political will and legal reality.
If the National Assembly insists that the Petroleum Act must remain as it is, then the oil and gas unit in the President’s office becomes even more clearly limited to its advisory role.
Any attempt to act as a regulator, sign agreements or direct the petroleum directorate would not only be invalid but would actively contradict Parliament’s expressed position.
That places the unit in an awkward space: influential on paper, politically symbolic, but with no absolute authority over the decisions that matter.
The effect on the civil service could be equally profound. When Parliament pushes back, officials in the Ministry of Mines and Energy will feel stronger legal protection in continuing to follow the Act rather than political signals.
The petroleum directorate would likely proceed more cautiously, but also with more confidence that only the Minister’s instructions have binding force.
At the same time, the Presidency may still expect influence, leaving civil servants caught between the two centres of authority. That uncertainty alone can slow the Venus timeline.
For Namibia’s oil and gas future, parliamentary resistance adds another layer of uncertainty. International oil companies prefer stable, predictable governance.
If MPs refuse to amend the Act, investors will interpret it as Parliament signalling that statutory powers must remain with the Minister. But they will also worry about the political fallout: a President claiming responsibility, a Minister holding the legal mandate, a Parliament refusing to shift power, and a civil service trying to navigate all three.
This clash between political pronouncements and legal reality has created uncertainty inside the oil and gas directorate.
Officials now find themselves torn between responding to the President’s statement and complying with the binding law that tells them they remain under the Minister.
The safest response for many civil servants is to slow down, wait for clarity, and avoid signing or recommending anything that might later be questioned. This hesitation alone can delay a project as large and complex as Venus.
TotalEnergies, meanwhile, is pushing toward its Final Investment Decision. The company cannot reach that point without clean, legally secure approvals from the correct authority.
That means the Minister must sign off on the petroleum agreement, approve the field development plan, and issue the production licence. If the government is confused about who has the final say, the entire Venus timeline can be pushed back.
Every month lost affects jobs, government revenue, infrastructure planning, and Namibia’s reputation as a stable frontier petroleum state.
Beyond Venus, these uncertainties cast a wider shadow over Namibia’s oil and gas future. International oil companies such as Shell, Chevron and Galp are watching how the country handles its first major regulatory test. They need predictability.
They need to know that a signature made today will remain valid after elections, Cabinet reshuffles, or internal political disagreements. If Parliament delays amending the law for too long, or if the executive continues to send mixed signals, Namibia risks appearing uncertain at a time when the global industry is seeking new, stable supply hubs.
The irony is that Namibia has everything going for it geologically. Venus is one of the most promising offshore discoveries in the world today. But geology alone is not enough.
The legal and constitutional framework must keep pace with political ambitions. Until Parliament clarifies the law, the Minister of Mines and Energy remains the only lawful authority in the petroleum sector. And until that clarity takes shape, Namibia’s most significant opportunity risks being slowed by its own internal contradictions.
The country is standing on the edge of a once-in-a-lifetime breakthrough. Whether it steps forward smoothly or hesitates will depend on whether the law, the Constitution, and political leadership align. Investors can work with ambition. What they cannot work with is uncertainty over who is in charge.
