PDM proposes a public register of beneficial owners

The Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) has proposed a public register of beneficial owners of extractive companies as part of a broader agenda for democratic governance, transparency and social justice in Namibia. The idea is straightforward: people should be able to see who ultimately owns or controls companies that explore for, mine, process or export the country’s natural resources.

A company may appear to be owned by a local firm while the real decision-makers sit behind holding companies, trusts or nominees in another jurisdiction. A beneficial ownership register would seek to identify the natural persons who receive the economic benefits or exercise effective control. That information could help the public, regulators, journalists and civil society follow the money connected to valuable national assets.

For an Australian audience, the proposal will sound familiar because questions about mining ownership, foreign investment and community benefits are regularly debated in Perth, the Pilbara, Queensland and Canberra. Namibia’s circumstances are distinct, but the underlying concern is similar: resource wealth should be managed openly, lawfully and in the public interest. PDM’s wider policy position can be explored through the party’s official website.

What beneficial ownership means

Legal ownership and beneficial ownership are not always the same. A company listed in a national registry may be controlled through a chain of subsidiaries, private trusts or investment vehicles. The registered shareholder could be another company, while an individual ultimately has the power to appoint directors, direct decisions or receive profits.

A public register would record those individuals rather than stopping at the first corporate name. It could include a person’s identity, the nature of their control, the percentage of shares or voting rights held, and the companies or licences connected to that interest. Clear definitions would be essential because control can exist through agreements or influence even when a person owns less than a formal majority.

The proposal is especially relevant to extractive industries because licences and concessions can generate substantial value from public resources. Namibia’s diamond, uranium, fishing, oil and gas, and emerging critical-minerals sectors attract domestic and international investment. Transparency about who stands behind a licence holder can help distinguish legitimate investment from concealed conflicts of interest or politically connected ownership.

Why extractive industries need scrutiny

Mining and petroleum projects can create jobs, export income and infrastructure, yet they also involve long-term decisions about land, water, royalties and environmental risk. When ownership is opaque, citizens may struggle to determine who benefits from a project or who should answer for its conduct. A register would make it easier to connect corporate decisions with the people exercising real authority.

Disclosure can also strengthen anti-corruption work. Public officials, politically exposed persons and their close associates may use companies or intermediaries to hide an interest in a concession, procurement contract or service agreement. A reliable register would not automatically prove wrongdoing, but it would give investigators and the public a practical starting point for identifying potential conflicts.

This matters in places such as Erongo, where uranium mining is economically significant, and in communities affected by exploration activity or new mineral projects. Residents need more than broad promises about development. They need accessible information about the companies involved, their financiers, their directors and the people who may gain from agreements negotiated in their name.

A public register must be usable

A register is valuable only when its information is accurate, searchable and kept current. PDM’s proposal points towards a system that ordinary citizens can use, rather than a database designed solely for lawyers or regulators. It should ideally allow searches by company, licence, project and beneficial owner, with records linked to relevant concessions and government approvals.

The system would need a clear legal duty on companies to disclose their ultimate owners when they apply for or retain an extractive licence. Changes in ownership should be reported within a defined period, and false declarations should attract meaningful penalties. Regulators would also need powers to verify information through company records, tax information, banking intelligence and cross-border cooperation.

Privacy safeguards would have to be carefully designed. Public accountability does not require the publication of sensitive personal information such as residential addresses or identity-document numbers. A sensible register could disclose ownership and control details while limiting information that creates unnecessary security risks. Narrow exemptions should be independently reviewed so that privacy cannot become a blanket excuse for secrecy.

Lessons from Australia’s resources economy

Australia provides useful comparisons, although its legal framework is different from Namibia’s. Mining companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange face disclosure obligations, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission maintains corporate records. Yet ownership structures can still involve offshore entities, nominee arrangements and complex investment vehicles. Public reporting does not always make the ultimate human beneficiaries immediately obvious.

In Western Australia, decisions made in Perth can affect workers and communities across the Pilbara. Fly-in, fly-out employment, Indigenous land-use agreements and environmental approvals create a chain of responsibilities involving companies, governments and local communities. A transparent ownership system could help people understand which corporate group controls a project and where accountability lies when commitments are disputed.

The same principle applies in Queensland and in debates in Canberra about critical minerals, foreign investment and supply-chain security. Australians are accustomed to asking who owns a mine, who receives the royalties and whether local communities get a fair go. A beneficial ownership register would complement, rather than replace, environmental regulation, tax enforcement, workplace protections and consultation with First Nations peoples.

For investors, openness can improve confidence rather than deter serious business. Companies that disclose their ownership clearly are less likely to be confused with entities involved in sanctions evasion, bribery or illicit financial flows. Banks, auditors and potential partners can conduct due diligence more effectively, while responsible investors can assess whether a project meets governance and ethical standards.

Connecting transparency with democratic participation

PDM presents beneficial ownership disclosure as part of a larger democratic principle: natural resources belong to the nation, and decisions about them must be open to public scrutiny. A register would give journalists, community organisations, parliamentary committees and citizens a stronger basis for examining concessions and contracts. It could also support informed debate before a project proceeds, rather than leaving the public to rely on rumours after decisions have been made.

Transparency should be connected to other reforms. Information about ownership is most useful when people can also access licensing terms, environmental assessments, royalty arrangements, production data and beneficial ownership declarations for contractors. Parliamentary oversight and independent auditing would help ensure that disclosure rules operate in practice, not just in legislation.

Effective implementation would require cooperation among company registries, mining authorities, tax agencies, financial-intelligence bodies and prosecutors. Namibia would also benefit from working with regional and international partners because ownership chains frequently cross borders. Shared standards can make it harder for an individual to conceal control by shifting a company between jurisdictions.

Public participation remains central. People who want to engage with PDM’s policy work, raise concerns or seek information can use the party’s contact page. Such engagement is part of the broader accountability process: citizens, businesses and institutions can test whether transparency measures are practical, fair and capable of protecting the public interest.

A public register would not solve every problem in Namibia’s extractive sector. It would not replace strong courts, capable regulators, fair taxation or meaningful environmental enforcement. It would, however, make hidden ownership harder to sustain and give the public a clearer view of who benefits from the country’s mineral and energy opportunities. For a resource-rich democracy, that visibility is a foundation for trust, responsible investment and national development.