PDM demands answers on sanitation in informal settlements
The Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) is calling for an independent inquiry into sanitation failures affecting people living in Namibia’s informal settlements. The demand reflects a basic principle of democratic governance: every resident deserves access to safe sanitation, clean surroundings, and public services delivered with dignity.
In many settlements, households face overcrowded living conditions, inadequate toilets, unreliable waste collection, overflowing sewage, and limited access to clean water. These conditions create serious public health risks, especially for children, older people, people with disabilities, and families living far from clinics and other essential services.
Sanitation cannot be treated as a secondary municipal concern. It is connected to constitutional rights, public health, environmental protection, housing policy, and the responsible use of public funds. An independent process can establish what went wrong, identify those responsible, and provide a credible path toward urgent correction.
Why sanitation demands public scrutiny
Informal settlements are often discussed through statistics, maps, or development plans, but the consequences of poor sanitation are experienced daily. Residents may have to share unsafe toilets, use open areas, live beside uncollected refuse, or walk long distances to find basic facilities. During heavy rain, waste and contaminated water can spread through homes and pathways, worsening the risk of disease.
These failures are rarely caused by a single decision. They may involve weak planning, delayed infrastructure projects, unclear institutional responsibilities, poor maintenance, inadequate budgets, or ineffective oversight. That is why a narrow administrative review may not be enough. The public needs a transparent examination of how sanitation policies were designed, funded, implemented, and monitored.
The PDM’s position places affected communities at the centre of the discussion. Residents should not be treated as passive recipients of assistance. They hold valuable information about service gaps, broken infrastructure, unsafe locations, and the practical barriers that official reports may overlook. Their testimony should form part of any inquiry.
What an independent inquiry should examine
An independent inquiry should have a clear mandate, adequate resources, and protection from political or institutional interference. Its work should cover national agencies, regional authorities, local councils, contractors, consultants, and any other bodies involved in sanitation planning or delivery. The process should also publish its terms of reference so the public can understand what will be investigated.
Several questions require careful attention. Were sanitation needs properly assessed before projects were approved? Were funds released on time and spent for their intended purpose? Did procurement procedures allow fair competition? Were contractors supervised effectively? Were completed facilities inspected, maintained, and connected to appropriate waste-management systems?
The inquiry should also examine whether residents were consulted in meaningful ways. Consultation should involve more than public notices or occasional meetings. It should consider language, accessibility, safety, gender, disability, and the specific needs of children and vulnerable households. Namibia’s constitutional framework provides important context for civic participation and accountability, as explained in this PDM guide for citizens.
Its findings should be made public in accessible language. A report that remains unreadable or unavailable to affected communities cannot deliver full accountability. Recommendations should include deadlines, responsible institutions, funding requirements, and a mechanism for tracking implementation.
The human cost of neglected services
Poor sanitation creates immediate health concerns, including exposure to bacteria, parasites, contaminated water, and hazardous waste. It can contribute to diarrhoeal illness and other preventable conditions. Where toilets are distant, damaged, or unsafe, women, girls, older residents, and people with mobility limitations may face heightened risks of harassment, injury, or assault.
Children are especially vulnerable. Unsafe surroundings can keep them away from school, restrict their ability to play, and expose them to disease. Parents may lose income when they must care for sick family members or spend hours collecting water and searching for functioning facilities. These costs rarely appear in municipal budgets, yet they affect household security and national development.
Sanitation failures also undermine environmental protection. Uncontrolled wastewater and refuse can contaminate soil, drainage channels, and water sources. Burning waste may pollute the air, while blocked drains can increase flooding during storms. A sustainable response must therefore connect sanitation with climate resilience, settlement upgrading, waste management, and public health planning.
A rights-based approach means that emergency measures should begin immediately while longer-term reforms are developed. Temporary toilets, regular waste removal, water points, lighting, drainage maintenance, and health outreach can reduce harm. These measures should be delivered alongside a credible plan for durable infrastructure rather than used as a substitute for it.
Transparency must follow the money
Public sanitation projects depend on public funds, which makes procurement and contract management central to the inquiry. Communities deserve to know how projects were selected, who received contracts, what standards were required, how payments were authorised, and whether promised work was completed. Clear records can help distinguish genuine capacity problems from negligence, waste, or corruption.
Transparent procurement does not mean delaying urgent services. It means ensuring that emergency spending is documented, competitive where possible, and subject to review. Contracts should contain measurable performance standards, maintenance obligations, penalties for non-performance, and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
The PDM’s wider policy perspective on this issue is reflected in its discussion of transparent public procurement. Open contracting, accessible project information, and strong audit institutions can help citizens follow the path from budget allocation to completed service.
| Area of concern | Evidence an inquiry should review | Public-interest outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | Settlement surveys, needs assessments, maps, and project priorities | Services directed to the communities facing the greatest risks |
| Funding | Budgets, releases, expenditure reports, and audit findings | Clear accountability for every public dollar |
| Procurement | Tender documents, bids, contracts, variations, and ownership records | Fair competition and reduced corruption risks |
| Delivery | Construction records, inspection certificates, photographs, and resident testimony | Verification that facilities exist and function |
| Maintenance | Cleaning schedules, repair logs, complaints, and response times | Reliable services after project completion |
| Public health | Clinic data, water testing, disease reports, and environmental assessments | Evidence-based measures to reduce illness |
| Oversight | Council minutes, parliamentary questions, and monitoring reports | Follow-through on recommendations and corrective action |
This information should be published in formats that residents, journalists, civil society organisations, and oversight bodies can use. Transparency is most effective when it enables scrutiny before problems become crises, rather than simply documenting failure after the fact.
A practical response for government
An inquiry should lead to a coordinated programme with immediate, medium-term, and long-term actions. National government can support standards, funding, technical capacity, and oversight, while regional and local authorities must be answerable for implementation in their jurisdictions. Responsibility should be assigned clearly so institutions cannot shift blame when services fail.
The response should be designed with residents and should include measurable targets. Authorities should report regularly on the number of functioning toilets, waste collection frequency, water access, drainage conditions, complaints resolved, and projects completed. Independent monitors can verify progress and publish results.
Priority actions should include:
- Establish an independent inquiry with public terms of reference, community hearings, and a fixed reporting deadline.
- Publish sanitation budgets, tenders, contracts, project milestones, inspection records, and expenditure updates.
- Provide immediate emergency services in high-risk settlements, including safe toilets, water access, waste removal, lighting, and drainage clearance.
- Create accessible complaint systems in relevant local languages, with protection for whistleblowers and clear response deadlines.
- Adopt a settlement-upgrading plan that links sanitation to housing, roads, stormwater management, electricity, and secure tenure.
The programme should also strengthen local capacity. Councils need qualified technical staff, reliable maintenance budgets, accurate settlement data, and systems that record complaints from receipt to resolution. Without these foundations, new infrastructure may deteriorate quickly or fail to serve growing communities.
Residents must have a voice in the remedy
An independent inquiry will have legitimacy only if affected residents can participate safely and meaningfully. Public hearings should be held in or near informal settlements, with transportation support, interpretation, disability access, and protection against retaliation. Written submissions, confidential testimony, and community-led evidence collection should be available for people who cannot attend formal hearings.
Civil society groups, health professionals, engineers, environmental organisations, churches, unions, and legal practitioners can help document conditions and monitor commitments. Journalists should be able to report on sanitation projects without intimidation. Youth organisations also have a valuable role in collecting information, promoting hygiene awareness, and ensuring that settlement upgrades reflect the aspirations of younger residents.
The PDM’s call is therefore about more than investigating past failures. It is a demand for a public system that respects residents, protects public resources, and treats basic services as a democratic responsibility. Transparent decision-making can rebuild confidence between communities and institutions.
Residents, civic organisations, public officials, and elected representatives can help keep this issue visible by documenting service failures, supporting affected households, attending public forums, and demanding timely disclosure of project information. The PDM will continue to advocate for an independent inquiry, urgent sanitation measures, and a transparent implementation process that delivers safe and dignified living conditions across Namibia.