Challenging the Audit-First Bar on Ministerial Travel Costs
Updated: Oct 12
When an opposition Member attempts to follow public money through parliamentary questions, the executive apparatus and the Speaker's chair should not act as a shield to block the truth. Yesterday, after notice was given for a follow-up question regarding itemised ministerial travel expenses under Question 152, the Speaker ruled that questions seeking an account of public expenditure are entirely out of order until the expenditure has been officially audited. That ruling imposes a convenient, unwritten audit-first bar that has no basis in the 2024 Standing Rules, the Namibian Constitution, or the State Finance Act of 1991. Standing Rule 131 makes the Presiding Member the sole judge of the rules, but it does not grant public expenditure blanket immunity from parliamentary scrutiny.
The written reply provided to Question 152 on 17 September 2026 listed ten separate trips taken by the Minister of International Relations and Trade, yet deliberately omitted the cost of each trip, the identity of accompanying officials, and how the travel was funded. While the Ministry's published budget estimates disclose an aggregate travel and subsistence figure of N$40,121,645.20 for the 2024/25 financial year, that broad figure is a Ministry-wide total rather than the Minister's personal travel bill and fails to answer trip-by-trip inquiries. Under Article 41 of the Constitution, Ministers are explicitly made accountable for the administration of their ministries both to the President and to Parliament. Shielding ministers from answering cost questions while public money is spent and while Parliament can still exercise oversight is systemic bias in effect.
The IPC refuses to accept a parliament where accountability is delayed until years after funds are disbursed and public records are buried. Written representations have been formally submitted to the Speaker requesting full written reasons, the specific legal provision relied upon, and an immediate reconsideration of the exclusion of cost questions. Diplomacy undeniably requires travel, but meaningful parliamentary accountability requires exact figures. Every lawful procedure available will be deployed to secure the outstanding particulars and defend the constitutional right of members to track public money.
Comments