The recent high-level engagement with the fishing industry in Walvis Bay was welcome – although long overdue. Unfortunately, judging from the speeches and contributions that have since been made public – as the meeting itself was closed to the public and civil society – the opportunity to confront the governance failures that continue to undermine the fisheries sector appears to have been missed.
Fishrot was not simply the story of a few corrupt individuals abusing public office. It exposed something far deeper: a fisheries governance system built around secrecy, discretion, and weak accountability. And despite years of public outrage, court proceedings, commissions of inquiry, and political promises, the fundamental problem remains largely unchanged.
Namibia still has not done the one thing that matters most: open up the system.
The fisheries sector remains one of the most important pillars of the Namibian economy. It supports thousands of jobs, sustains coastal communities, and generates significant export earnings. Namibia’s marine resources are a national asset that should benefit the public as a whole. Yet the system governing access to these resources remains remarkably opaque.
To this day, there is no comprehensive publicly accessible register showing who holds fishing rights, who receives quotas, the value of those quotas, or who ultimately benefits from them. The public cannot easily determine which companies are genuinely investing in the sector and which are merely profiting from political connections or preferential access. In many cases, even the beneficial ownership of companies remains obscured behind layers of intermediaries or nominee arrangements.
This lack of transparency is not a minor administrative weakness or technical oversight. It is a governance failure that creates fertile ground for abuse, rent-seeking, and corruption.
Fishrot demonstrated exactly how dangerous such opacity can become. Decisions over quotas and fishing rights were allegedly manipulated behind closed doors for private gain, while politically connected actors benefited from access to public resources that should have been managed in the national interest. The scandal severely damaged Namibia’s international reputation and eroded public trust in state institutions.
Yet many of the structural weaknesses that enabled Fishrot remain firmly in place.
Discretionary powers over quotas and rights allocations are still highly concentrated. Allocation processes remain difficult to scrutinise. “Paper quota holders” – entities that hold rights without making meaningful investments in vessels, processing, or employment – continue to feature prominently in the sector. Concerns about favouritism, patronage, and unequal access have not disappeared; if anything, they continue to fuel public cynicism.
This matters not only because corruption remains a risk, but because opacity actively undermines the long-term sustainability and credibility of the industry itself.
Investors are more likely to commit capital to sectors governed by clear and predictable rules rather than opaque political discretion. Workers and coastal communities are more likely to trust a system they can see and understand. Citizens are more likely to support fisheries policies if they believe the country’s resources are being managed fairly and responsibly.
Transparency is therefore not an optional extra or public relations exercise. It is a foundation for sustainable governance and economic development.
The reforms required are neither radical nor complicated. What has been missing is political will.
Government should begin by publishing comprehensive information on fishing rights holders, quota allocations, and the beneficial ownership of companies operating in the sector. Namibians have a right to know who benefits from access to national marine resources.
The Marine Resources Act should also be reviewed to reduce excessive discretionary powers and establish clearer, rules-based allocation mechanisms. Decisions involving valuable public resources should not depend primarily on opaque ministerial discretion.
Namibia should further align the fisheries sector with international transparency standards and initiatives. Joining the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI) would send an important signal that the country is serious about reform and accountability. FiTI promotes disclosure of information on fisheries laws, quota allocations, access agreements, beneficial ownership, and other key governance issues. Many of these disclosures are standard practice in countries seeking to strengthen public trust and improve fisheries management.
Similarly, lessons can be drawn from initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which has demonstrated the value of publishing information on licensing, beneficial ownership, revenues, and state decision-making in sectors vulnerable to corruption.
Ultimately, transparency is not about weakening the fishing industry. It is about protecting it.
Namibia has one of the world’s most valuable marine ecosystems. The fisheries sector should be a model of responsible governance, sustainability, and broad-based economic benefit. Instead, it continues to carry the shadow of Fishrot because the system has not yet been fundamentally opened to public scrutiny.
Namibians deserve more than promises of reform. They deserve a fisheries system that is transparent, accountable, and demonstrably fair.
Fishrot showed us what happens in the dark.
It is time to switch on the lights.