Procurement reform must deliver both speed and accountability
Namibia’s revised public procurement regulations represent an important attempt to address one of the persistent weaknesses in the public sector: the tension between the need to spend public money efficiently and the equally important need to ensure that such spending is transparent, competitive and accountable. The regulations, which came into operation on 4 August 2026, […]
Namibia’s revised public procurement regulations represent an important attempt to address one of the persistent weaknesses in the public sector: the tension between the need to spend public money efficiently and the equally important need to ensure that such spending is transparent, competitive and accountable.
The regulations, which came into operation on 4 August 2026, give more than 80 public entities greater scope to undertake procurement without having to rely as heavily on centralised processes. The stated intention is to reduce administrative delays, decongest the Central Procurement Board of Namibia (CPBN), broaden opportunities for suppliers and ultimately improve public service delivery.
These are worthwhile objectives. Yet, as with any reform that gives public institutions greater discretion over public funds, the success of the changes will depend less on the regulations themselves than on how they are implemented.
For years, businesses and government institutions have complained about procurement processes that can be lengthy and cumbersome. Where relatively routine purchases have to navigate layers of approval, the result can be delayed projects, delayed service delivery and frustration among both public officials and suppliers.
The revision of procurement thresholds therefore makes practical sense. The thresholds established when the Public Procurement Act came into operation in 2017 were designed for economic circumstances that have since changed. Inflation, higher input costs and movements in the value of the Namibia dollar mean that the real value of procurement thresholds has changed considerably.
Allowing public entities to manage a wider range of procurement activities could therefore make government more responsive.
It could also allow the CPBN to concentrate on what it should arguably do best: overseeing strategic, high-value and complex procurement where centralised expertise and scrutiny are most valuable.
This is potentially a significant improvement. A central procurement institution should not become a bottleneck for every purchasing decision across the public sector. Decentralisation, when properly managed, can bring decisions closer to the institutions responsible for delivering services.
The introduction of a high-value public entity category for Namcor, TransNamib and the Roads Authority is another notable development. These institutions regularly undertake substantial projects and have been assessed by the finance ministry as possessing the institutional capacity, governance structures and experience necessary to manage large-scale procurement.
Giving them greater operational flexibility is understandable.
However, greater flexibility should never be confused with reduced accountability.
The new framework recognises this distinction by requiring additional reporting and oversight for high-value procurement. Where procurement exceeds the applicable threshold, these entities must notify the procurement policy unit, submit procurement plans for approval and report after executing procurement.
That oversight is essential.
Public procurement is particularly vulnerable to conflicts of interest, political interference, inflated pricing, favouritism and other forms of abuse because it involves significant amounts of public money and commercial relationships. Greater spending authority can improve efficiency, but it can also create greater opportunities for misconduct if internal controls are weak.
The reform should therefore be judged on two measures simultaneously: how much faster government can procure what it needs, and whether the public can remain confident that it is receiving value for money.
One should not come at the expense of the other.
The elevation of regional councils from category two to category one is also significant. It reflects the broader decentralisation of government functions and recognises that responsibilities should ideally be accompanied by the authority and resources necessary to fulfil them.
But decentralisation will only work if capacity follows responsibility.
Regional councils must have competent procurement committees, properly staffed procurement management units, effective internal controls and officials who understand the requirements of the revised regulations. Without these safeguards, shifting procurement authority from the centre could simply shift procurement problems from one level of government to another.
The finance ministry’s planned transitional engagement sessions and subsequent training are therefore welcome. Capacity-building should not be treated as a once-off exercise. Procurement regulations are complex, and officials must be continually trained as systems, technology and legislation evolve.
The emphasis on electronic government procurement is equally important. Digital procurement can improve record-keeping, transparency and accessibility while reducing opportunities for informal intervention in procurement
