Playing with words will not resolve the Uhuru Dempers questions

The controversy surrounding the role of Uhuru Dempers at the National Youth Council (NYC) is no longer simply about one individual. It has evolved into a broader question about transparency, accountability and respect for public procedures within the Ministry of Education, Innovation, Youth, Sport, Arts and Culture.

At the centre of the matter lies a contradiction that the ministry itself has failed to adequately address.

For months, Mr Dempers has reportedly attended meetings with and on behalf of Minister Sanet Steenkamp. Attendance records confirm his presence at numerous NYC engagements. Sources inside the youth sector describe him as having exercised influence over internal matters and even lobbying delegates ahead of the upcoming general assembly.

Those who interacted with him understood him to be functioning as a special advisor to the minister.

Yet, when confronted with questions, the ministry insists that Mr Dempers was never appointed as a “special advisor on youth matters”. Instead, according to Executive Director Gerard Vries, he is merely an independent consultant engaged on a temporary basis to support reforms at the National Youth Council.

The problem is that changing the terminology does not automatically eliminate the substance of the concerns.

If a person attends strategic meetings, provides guidance, participates in governance processes, represents ministerial interests and influences policy discussions, then ordinary Namibians are entitled to ask a simple question: what exactly is the difference between an advisor and a consultant in this context?

The public deserves more than semantic gymnastics.