Former president Nangolo Mbumba says he is unaware of a reported new office being built for him in Windhoek, despite the government previously saying it had no plans to construct one.
“Did you see them building something? Ask those that are building. I am on my farm,” Mbumba says when asked about the construction.
Independent Patriots for Change lawmaker Imms Nashinge questions whether Mbumba should receive the same post-presidential benefits as former presidents who were elected by the public.
“Facts are that Nangolo Mbumba served in an acting capacity and was never directly elected by the public. Granting full post-presidential benefits and constructing a brand-new facility raises serious questions about accountability and public spending,” he wrote on his Facebook account.
The post also questions why the government would construct another facility when existing offices could potentially be repurposed.
The reported construction comes after prime minister Elijah Ngurare told parliament in 2025 that the government had no plans to construct a new office for Mbumba.
Ngurare made the statement while responding to questions from Popular Democratic Movement leader McHenry Venaani about post-presidency arrangements for Mbumba.
Mbumba assumed the Presidency in February 2024 following the death of Hage Geingob and served until March 2025.
Ngurare said the government was considering a shared office complex for former presidents as a way to reduce costs and allow former heads of state to share services.
The Former President’s Pension and Other Benefits Act of 2004 provides former presidents with benefits, including a furnished office, personal staff, security, transport and medical aid.
However, the legislation does not require the construction of a separate office for each former president.
In February this year, The Namibian reported that the government had spent N$152 million on retirement homes for four former presidents – Sam Nujoma, Hifikepunye Pohamba, Geingob and Mbumba.
Mbumba’s retirement home in Windhoek cost N$38 million, including the purchase price and reported expenditure on renovations and furnishing.
Questions sent to the Presidency about the purpose of the construction, its cost, the institution responsible and whether the project aligns with the government’s earlier position had not been answered by the time of publication.
