As Namibia strengthens its ties with Western countries, we should steer clear of adopting their policies and laws.
As much as they like to call countries in Africa third-world countries, we are way ahead in certain instances (we can debate about it later).
For example: In 2024, in Wasco, California, a man was hit by a train and died. Not long after his accident, wishes for him to rest in peace fell on deaf ears as a homeless man who happened to walk by picked up his severed limb and started eating it. He was filmed, and the video went viral, of course.
By a simple Google search, this is what a ‘first world country’ is referred to as: industrialised, capitalist, and democratic nations with high standards of living. Please draw your attention to high standards of living. Eating a severed limb does not seem like a high standard of living. Or maybe I’m old school because I’m not from the Epstein class type.
In 2025, California, a state in the United States, recorded a gross domestic product (GDP) of approximately US$3.9 trillion. The fourth highest in the world. Ahead of Japan. With its high GDP return, it has a high return on homelessness as well. This normally goes hand in hand with their high drug use – state-initiated crisis, but I digress.
The propaganda fed to African countries is diabolical, but we cannot be fed their laws as well.
On to the laws that Namibians should start paying more attention to: The cybercrime bill to most looks like a light at the end of the tunnel. To those who know and have done the research, the light is a train at full speed.
The Namibia cybercrime bill of 2026 has so many red flags that if it were a man, God would come down and warn women personally to stay away. For those interested in reading the bill in its full extent, search for it under NAMIBIACYBERCRIMEBILL-30.1.26, before it gets taken down. As a journalist, this makes me tremble in my boots for what is to be implemented if not scrutinised.
Let’s get right into it.
Let’s start with the act blatantly stating that it can and will supersede all laws. This is Section 3 of the cybercrime bill of Namibia. “Where there is a conflict between the provisions of this act and the provisions of any other written law, the provisions of this act shall prevail on matters relating to cybercrime and cybersecurity.”
This does not seem like a problem on face value. Let me tell you why it is, in fact, a major red flag. Government information, if not all of it, is stored digitally these days, and requesting a single file could easily be rejected as threatening cybersecurity. Therewith, forfeiting all benefits one might have drawn from the Access to Information Act, 2022.
Covering all politicians and policymakers under the guise of cybersecurity. I have a word I would like to use in Afrikaans. But I’m a child of God, so let me not.
Whistleblowing protection blown away by “undesirable content”.
Our Twitter/X and Facebook warriors have to be wary about this one.
Section 23 of the cybercrime bill and Section 64 of the Access to Information Act are at war with one another. But in the grand scheme of supersession, we know who reigns supreme.
The section has some solid points that should be implemented. But here is the kicker: If the administration of a certain group, any group, has a member exposing corruption, that content can be removed as undesirable and will be investigated. I quote: “An administrator of an online account is responsible for moderating and controlling undesirable content that has been brought to their attention by an investigating authority.” Failure to do so can lead to a fine of N$1 million.
STATE SURVEILLANCE
Let’s talk about the ‘s’ word. And no, not the good one. Surveillance. It has become synonymous with the ‘Oupa Gollie’ stories we grew up listening to as children.
When the psychos (myself included) say the government is watching you, we are not joking. There is something I learned researching this, called the Snowden Era, which highlights a shift in the legal fraternity post 2013 on digital privacy. Edward Snowden, a whistleblower who worked at the National Security Agency, revealed that US government institutions have been collecting data on global citizens. This ignited a fire about privacy rights and government transparency.
Clearly, the fire died down before reaching the global South. Anyway, seven years after the revelation in September 2020, the US courts ruled that these institutions acted unlawfully, which snowballed into several legislative reforms that need to be adhered to.
There are no proportionality tests attached to the surveillance powers in sections 40 and 41. No requirement to consider less invasive means before they start collecting your data. No necessity standard. And the threshold that gives them the green light? “Reasonable grounds to believe.” That is it. No further definition. No benchmark. Just vibes. Government vibes, which should terrify you if you have been paying attention.
There is a beautiful set of guiding principles called the ‘Necessary and Proportionate Principles’, or ’13 Principles’, that brings together international law and aligns it with today’s digital realities. They guide non-government organisations, civil society and governments in benchmarking laws against international human rights standards. However, Namibia is not a signatory to these principles.
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
In parts where the bill should actually matter and make a real difference it is vague and incomplete. Incomplete where? In the sections relating to child sexual abuse material and grooming. On the matter where it matters the most, we cannot be vague. On the matter where we must protect the most vulnerable in our society, we cannot afford to be incomplete. I say this as a mother who does not know the extent to which I would go if anyone does anything along the lines of abusing my son.
In Section 26A, the list of offences is just that, a list of draft offences, not clearly defined. It won’t stand in a court of law. Sexual extortion not adequately addressed either and will most likely fall under cyber-extortion, which, by the way, carries a penalty, the bill bizarrely states as “one million pounds”, a currency error that itself exposes this as copied foreign legislature, not an original Namibian draft Section 20 of the bill.
I expect us to at least draft a bill that meets the Namibian context where we are, and not copy and paste from the West.
MY FINAL CRY
I hope I speak for Namibians when I say we voted for a perceived competent legislature. We pay taxes that should essentially pay for the lawyers who should go through these bills. Cybercrime is important; a bill addressing it is even more important.
Therefore, we cannot copy and paste what the West is doing. As a taxpayer and a voter I do expect the parliament to critique every word and sentence of every bill in the National Assembly.
The eighth administration has been busy with ‘business unusual’, and the onus falls on the opposition not to waste precious time in parliament. Address the matters at hand. Do due diligence. Do not let your base down.
Jeanette Diergaardt has eight years’ experience in the media industry. She holds an honours degree in media studies from the University of Namibia with specialisation in print and digital media.
