Public debate is healthy in any democracy, especially when it concerns the management of public resources.

The recent criticism of Works and Transport Minister Veikko Nekundi over his reported refusal to allow the sale of a government house previously occupied by former National Assembly Speaker Professor Peter Katjavivi has sparked strong opinions across Namibia.

Yet, if we are to judge this matter fairly and consistently, we must conclude that Nekundi is simply applying the same principle he has already demonstrated: government property belongs to the government.

Many Namibians will recall that in October 2025, following the passing of Founding President Dr. Sam Nujoma, Honourable Nekundi ordered the state vehicle assigned to the late President to be returned to the State Garage.

At the time, he acted within the authority vested in him as the minister responsible. Although the decision sparked debate, a significant portion of the public welcomed it because it reinforced an important principle that state assets do not become private property simply because they were allocated to a public office holder.

Fast-forward to today, and the same minister is facing criticism for refusing to sell a government residence occupied by Professor Peter Katjavivi during his tenure as Speaker of the National Assembly. The question that deserves asking is simple: what has changed? If Namibians applauded the return of a government vehicle in 2025 because it belonged to the state, why should a government house suddenly be treated as an exception? Consistency is one of the cornerstones of good governance.

Government houses are acquired with taxpayers’ money. They are intended to accommodate serving public officials in the performance of their duties, not to serve as personal rewards at the end of public service.

Once an office-bearer leaves office, the property should remain available for the next individual appointed to that position or for any other legitimate government purpose. That is how public assets are preserved across generations.

Some argue that, given Professor Katjavivi’s decades of distinguished service to Namibia, including as Speaker of the National Assembly, university leader, diplomat, and liberation veteran, he deserves special consideration. There is no doubt that his contribution to Namibia’s political, educational, and national development is immense and worthy of recognition.

His legacy is firmly established in the country’s history. However, appreciation for distinguished service should never be mistaken for entitlement to public property.

Public office is a position of trust, not a means of acquiring state assets. If long service automatically entitled former office-holders to purchase the government houses they occupied, where would the line be drawn? Would former ministers demand to buy official residences?

Would permanent secretaries seek ownership of government accommodation? Would judges, governors, diplomats, or senior executives make similar claims? Once such a precedent is set, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify denying others the same privilege.

The implications extend beyond a single house or individual. Government properties are finite public resources. Future office bearers will also require accommodation and operational assets. If each departing official takes the property assigned to them, the state will gradually erode its asset base and be forced to spend even more public funds to replace what has already been built or purchased. That is neither financially responsible nor sustainable.

This principle is not unique to government houses.

Across the public service, vehicles, offices, equipment, and residences remain state property regardless of how long they have been in use. A minister may drive an official vehicle for years, but it remains a government vehicle.

A regional governor may occupy an official residence for an entire term, but it remains government accommodation. Duration of use does not confer ownership.

Nekundi’s position also reflects broader government thinking on protecting public assets. Similar sentiments have been expressed by James Sankwasa, Minister of Urban and Rural Development, regarding public land, emphasising that government land should remain government property and cautioning local authorities against treating such assets as commodities for disposal.

His reminder that the liberation struggle was fundamentally about reclaiming land underscores the responsibility of current leaders to protect national assets for future generations rather than diminish them through unnecessary disposals.

Critics may view Nekundi’s decision as harsh or insensitive, but leadership is often measured by the willingness to uphold principles, even when unpopular. Ministers are entrusted with powers precisely to safeguard public resources in accordance with the law and the public interest. Exercising those powers consistently should not be mistaken for unfairness.

Ultimately, this debate should not centre on personalities. It should centre on principles. Whether the individual involved is an ordinary public servant, a former minister, a former Speaker, or even a founding leader, government property remains government property. Applying one standard to one person and a different one to another undermines equality before the law.

Nekundi is not diminishing Professor Katjavivi’s remarkable contribution to Namibia. Rather, he is drawing a clear distinction between honouring public service and transferring ownership of public assets.

That distinction is essential to strengthening accountability, protecting taxpayer-funded property, and ensuring that future generations inherit a government that manages public resources consistently rather than sentimentally.

*Hosea Shishiveni is a scholar and thought-leader. He can be reached at hoseasn8@gmail.com