By Onesmus Keudaneko Joseph
Over the past few weeks, the government has advertised several boards of directors’ positions across various state-owned enterprises.
Wait, before you even consider applying, pause for a moment and ask yourself: Are you ready to own your opinions? Board appointments are not honorary titles.
They demand courage, independence of mind, and a willingness to stand alone when the interests of the institution and the public demand require it.
In many boardrooms across Namibia, decisions that shape public institutions and major corporate entities are not failing because of a lack of laws, policies, or frameworks.
They are failing quietly because too many people are afraid to disagree. I am sure you lived long, and you witnessed this. Imagine a boardroom where everyone nods in agreement. No hard questions.
No uncomfortable pauses. No dissenting voices. On the surface, it looks efficient, united, even “professional.” However, I can tell you, this is the greatest threat to good governance.
As a Chartered Secretary and Corporate Governance practitioner, I am often asked whether decisions at the board level, particularly those made by non-executive directors, are to be taken by consensus or by vote.
In essence, this question alone already reveals a deeper problem. It assumes that agreement is the goal, while it is not. It is a good thing to agree, but who says it is the ultimate? We often read headlines about governance failures, procurement controversies, board dissolutions, institutional instability, and decisions that later must be reversed at great public cost.
Rarely do these failures arise from a complete absence of rules. More often, they stem from a governing body that did not interrogate information deeply enough, did not challenge assumptions, or did not record dissent when it mattered.
King IV, which by far inspired the NamCode, is very clear on this point: boards are expected to exercise independent judgment, courage, and accountability. Nowhere do these frameworks elevate consensus as a governing principle.
Yet in practice, consensus has become a convenient refuge. It is easier to agree than to stand alone. It is safer to align with the majority than to risk being labelled “difficult,” “not strategic,” or “not a team player.” In Namibia’s relatively small governance ecosystem, where professional circles are close-knit, and reputations travel fast, this fear is real, but take it from me, governance was never meant to be comfortable.
If everyone agreed, who would make the decision if it failed? Voting, on the other hand, has a powerful effect. It forces directors to take a position. It creates a clear record of who supported what, who opposed it, and why. It protects institutions, shareholders, and ultimately the public interest.
We have to mature and understand that the diversity of opinion is not a weakness of the board; it is its strength. A governing body that never votes is not necessarily unified; it may simply be silent. Look at democracy: it does not collapse because people disagree. It collapses when disagreement is suppressed. The same logic applies in corporate and public governance.
As a country, we don’t need quieter boardrooms; we need governing bodies where non-executive directors understand that their duty is not to please but to protect. Not to agree quickly, but to think deeply. Not to follow the room, but to serve the juristic person. So yes, debate hard. Argue respectfully. Test every assumption, but when the time comes to decide, do not hide behind artificial consensus. Vote. Record dissent. Own your position. That is not a disruption. That is the call of governance.
*Onesmus Keudaneko Joseph is a Business Strategy and Chartered Corporate Governance Practitioner with a strong focus on strategic foresight and futures literacy. He is currently the Manager for Intellectual Property Enforcement and Frameworks at BIPA. He writes in his personal capacity.
