By Jefta Macgregor Gaoab
I have followed with keen interest the proposed acquisition and merger of Schwenk Namibia by Whale Rock Cement.
The Namibia Competition Commission’s (NACC) first public stakeholder engagement on the proposed acquisition of shares in Schwenck Namibia Pty Limited (Schwenk Namibia) by West China Cement (WCC) was held on 9 July 2020 in Windhoek, at the Commission’s chambers.
A second stakeholders’ conference on the same matter was held on 5 June 2025 at Protea Hotel in Windhoek. I attended both in person, participated actively, and on each occasion stated my objection to the proposed acquisition and merger clearly and without equovocation.
On both occasions, NACC, drawing on stakeholder input and its own analysis, objected to the proposed acquisition and merger. It gave sound reasons for doing so.
The Ministry of Mines and Energy plays a pivotal role as custodian of Namibia’s natural resources and must ensure that these resources are explored, developed and utilized responsibly, in a manner that grows and sustains the Namibian economy for the benefit of its people.
This cannot be overstated. NACC, by contrast, is an independent statutory body established under the Competition Act, 2003 (Act No. 2 of 2003), mandated to promote and safeguard competition in the Namibian economy for the benefit of consumers, businesses and the country as a whole.
In fulfilling this mandate, NACC weighs consumer welfare, legal certainty, competition law, consumer welfare, public interest and market concentration.
Having considered public and stakeholder input, NACC reached its conclusion and formally objected to the proposed acquisition and merger of Schwenck Namibia by Whale Rock Cement. I am confident that the Honorable Minister Amutse was briefed on NACC’s position, and equally informed of public’s objection.
Allow me to place this in context. In the Vitol matter, a different sector (petroleum) NACC originally prohibited fuel retailer Nasan Energies from procuring fuel from global energy trader Vitol for five years.
This was a strict condition attached to Nasan’s acquisition of 53 Engen and Shell service stations, intended to prevent excessive market concentration, given Vitol’s already substantive share of the wholesale market.
The same Honorable Minister Amutse on this condition, citing unfamiliarity with Vitol’s ties to Namibia, a curious admission from a Minister who ought to be fully across the affairs of so strategic a portfolio.
Despite clear warnings of market concentration (and the risk of monopoly pricing, the Honorable Minister invoked section 49 of the Competition Act to overturn the prohibition of the merger, attaching conditions of his own.
Those conditions amount to little more than a smokescreen and carry scant weight against NACC’s original findings. It remains uncertain whether the promised jobs will materialize, while it is factual that the acquisition and merger will entrench a dominant market position bordering on monopoly.
What, then, is left for NACC to monitor going forward? The Minister is fully aware of the implications of his decision, and it is difficult to see how this serves the best interest of NACC or Namibian consumers.
Following the Vitol/Nasan matter, the first instance of the Minister overturning NACC’s prohibition, he went on to overturn the prohibition of the Ohorongo Cement–Cheetah Cement merger as well.
Whose interests is the Minister serving? Clearly not Namibia’s, and clearly not NACC’s considered position. NACC may speak confidently of the Minister’s statutory powers to overturn its decisions, and I note the change in its tone on this point compared to its own earlier findings. History, however, will judge these matters in due course.
It is on record that NACC prohibited the proposed acquisition of Schwenk Namibia by Whale Rock Cement on two separate occasions.
What, then, changed following the appointment of Honourable Minister Amutse? One is left to wonder whether he alone is fully versed in Section 49 of the Competition Act, and whether his predecessor simply lacked the same command of it.
The Minister is well aware of the consequences of his actions, and history will judge both him and those whose interests are served by his use of Section 49.
My position remains that competition must prevail in Namibia’s cement industry, and that no provision of the Competition Act should be invoked to serve narrow interests at the expense of the Namibian nation.
The Minister is not above the law. Every institution and individual, the President, senior government officials and the judiciary must remain open to scrutiny and accountability in the national interest.
As I have done on previous occasions in opposing this merger and acquisition, I maintain that position, even as the saying goes, “when the wind changes direction, what was hidden becomes visible.” That said, the exercise of such discretion does not place the decision beyond criticism or debate.
I continue to believe that the Commission’s original decision better safeguarded competition, protected local industry, and promoted Namibia’s broader economic interests. Respectfully, I remain unconvinced that the reversal serves those objectives.
Therefore, my position statement is that competition must triumph in Namibia’s cement industry above everything else.
*Jefta Macgregor Gaoab, Otavi Resident
