All eyes on NEEEB talks
The Economic Policy Research Association (EPRA) has released a report on the negative impact the empowerment bill will have on the economy should it be implemented in its current form.
Jo-Maré Duddy – The outcomes of a round of stakeholder consultations on draft empowerment legislation, which starts this morning, “will help to inform any necessary additional revisions” before the National Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill (NEEEB) is tabled.
The Namibia Investment Promotion and Development Board (NIPDB) used this phrase in its invitation to the three sessions today, tomorrow and Friday. Due to Covid-19 restrictions only 50 private sector players and members from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are allowed to attend the physical sessions at a time, but virtual participation is possible.
“Five years after its first release, NEEEB is now in its fourth carnation, with a new draft from late 2020 coming to light in early 2021,” the Economic Policy Research Association (EPRA) says in its latest report on the controversial bill, released last week.
“The bill has changed dramatically from the first draft of 2016, however little from the draft of early 2020, and it appears as if the extensive input given on the early-2020 draft has been ignored,” EPRA comments.
The EPRA report was compiled through the contributions of various experts in, among others, law (including international trade law), economics, business management, corporate governance, risk management, financial management, public governance and futures studies.
‘ROAD TO HELL’
Like many local analysts and economists, EPRA maintains that NEEEB will deter investment and, as such, will fail in its aim of promoting inclusive economic growth based on equitable and sustainable redistribution of wealth and income.
“There is an old adage which states that the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” EPRA says, adding: “The most probable outcome [of NEEEB] is that economic growth will decline, and inequality and poverty will increase. Most Namibians will be left significantly worse off as a direct result of this legislation.”
According to EPRA: “Essentially, NEEEB aims to socially engineer preferred and utopian outcomes on a grand, national scale. It does so by introducing vague and draconian legislation where virtually unfettered power and discretion rests in the hands of a yet unnamed minister and commissioner to set standards and criteria for private sector participation in the economy. It includes the power to withhold licenses, permits and authorisations for economic activities, irrespective of whether private entities do business with government or not.”
In its 75-page report, EPRA concludes that NEEEB “sets the stage for substantive abuse of power, corruption, nepotism and government control”. “It actively discourages foreign and domestic investment, encourages capital outflows, and violates several key fundamental constitutional rights and international treaty obligations,” EPRA warns.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
In its legal analysis of NEEEB, EPRA stresses that the bill is unconstitutional.
“We have been requested to provide recommendations on removing the unconstitutional parts of NEEEB, on the assumption that what remains will be constitutional, and the promulgation of NEEEB proceed on that basis. The unsurmountable problem however remains, when all unconstitutional parts are removed, nothing of any substance or functionality remains in the bill,” EPRA says.
The thinktank adds: “To cure the unconstitutionality of the relevant parts will require the policymakers to go back to the drawing board.”
EPRA says it is aware that the policymakers have been made aware “many” unconstitutionalities in NEEEB, as early as 2016. “It is unfortunate that the policymakers still show no inclination to cure such unconstitutionalities.”
INVESTMENT
NEEEB increases uncertainty for domestic and foreign investors as all standards and charters remain open-ended and can be changed at any time in future, while bypassing the legislative process, EPRA says.
“Unfortunately, our lawmakers have not heeded any advice from the private sector and the international community since the original introduction of NEEEB in 2016, as the latest version proves in all aspects to be more draconian and more unconstitutional than previous iterations.”
EPRA concludes by saying its report may again be ignored by the policymakers, adding: “It is then appropriate to conclude with the words of Advocate Chuma Nwkolo: ‘Tell them we have tried.’”
The Namibia Investment Promotion and Development Board (NIPDB) used this phrase in its invitation to the three sessions today, tomorrow and Friday. Due to Covid-19 restrictions only 50 private sector players and members from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are allowed to attend the physical sessions at a time, but virtual participation is possible.
“Five years after its first release, NEEEB is now in its fourth carnation, with a new draft from late 2020 coming to light in early 2021,” the Economic Policy Research Association (EPRA) says in its latest report on the controversial bill, released last week.
“The bill has changed dramatically from the first draft of 2016, however little from the draft of early 2020, and it appears as if the extensive input given on the early-2020 draft has been ignored,” EPRA comments.
The EPRA report was compiled through the contributions of various experts in, among others, law (including international trade law), economics, business management, corporate governance, risk management, financial management, public governance and futures studies.
‘ROAD TO HELL’
Like many local analysts and economists, EPRA maintains that NEEEB will deter investment and, as such, will fail in its aim of promoting inclusive economic growth based on equitable and sustainable redistribution of wealth and income.
“There is an old adage which states that the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” EPRA says, adding: “The most probable outcome [of NEEEB] is that economic growth will decline, and inequality and poverty will increase. Most Namibians will be left significantly worse off as a direct result of this legislation.”
According to EPRA: “Essentially, NEEEB aims to socially engineer preferred and utopian outcomes on a grand, national scale. It does so by introducing vague and draconian legislation where virtually unfettered power and discretion rests in the hands of a yet unnamed minister and commissioner to set standards and criteria for private sector participation in the economy. It includes the power to withhold licenses, permits and authorisations for economic activities, irrespective of whether private entities do business with government or not.”
In its 75-page report, EPRA concludes that NEEEB “sets the stage for substantive abuse of power, corruption, nepotism and government control”. “It actively discourages foreign and domestic investment, encourages capital outflows, and violates several key fundamental constitutional rights and international treaty obligations,” EPRA warns.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
In its legal analysis of NEEEB, EPRA stresses that the bill is unconstitutional.
“We have been requested to provide recommendations on removing the unconstitutional parts of NEEEB, on the assumption that what remains will be constitutional, and the promulgation of NEEEB proceed on that basis. The unsurmountable problem however remains, when all unconstitutional parts are removed, nothing of any substance or functionality remains in the bill,” EPRA says.
The thinktank adds: “To cure the unconstitutionality of the relevant parts will require the policymakers to go back to the drawing board.”
EPRA says it is aware that the policymakers have been made aware “many” unconstitutionalities in NEEEB, as early as 2016. “It is unfortunate that the policymakers still show no inclination to cure such unconstitutionalities.”
INVESTMENT
NEEEB increases uncertainty for domestic and foreign investors as all standards and charters remain open-ended and can be changed at any time in future, while bypassing the legislative process, EPRA says.
“Unfortunately, our lawmakers have not heeded any advice from the private sector and the international community since the original introduction of NEEEB in 2016, as the latest version proves in all aspects to be more draconian and more unconstitutional than previous iterations.”
EPRA concludes by saying its report may again be ignored by the policymakers, adding: “It is then appropriate to conclude with the words of Advocate Chuma Nwkolo: ‘Tell them we have tried.’”
Kommentar
Allgemeine Zeitung
Zu diesem Artikel wurden keine Kommentare hinterlassen