The Namibian government’s 56-day ultimatum to e-hailing operators Yango and inDrive signals a familiar instinct: regulate first, threaten bans if necessary, and only then consider the broader picture.
It may sound decisive, but it risks missing the point entirely.
Because the real question is not whether these platforms are fully compliant. It is why they have been embraced so quickly in the first place.
E-hailing did not create a problem. It responded to one.
For years, commuters have had to navigate a taxi system that is often unreliable, inconsistent and, at times, unsafe.
Getting from point A to point B is rarely straightforward. Trips are delayed while drivers look for additional passengers. Time is lost. Convenience is sacrificed.
Then there are the everyday frustrations. No guaranteed change. No clear pricing. No structured way to report poor behaviour.
No accountability. And critically, no system that allows passengers to rate drivers or influence service standards.
These are not minor inconveniences. They are structural weaknesses that have gone unaddressed for years.
So when e-hailing platforms entered the market offering direct trips, upfront pricing, driver identification and basic accountability through ratings, commuters responded. Not because the technology is perfect, but because it solved real, everyday problems.
Yet the current response has been to focus almost entirely on regulation and enforcement.
There is no doubt that regulation is necessary. Licensing, safety standards and compliance cannot be optional. The taxi industry is justified in raising concerns about uneven enforcement and unfair competition.
But regulation cannot exist in isolation from reality.
Operators themselves point to a permitting system that is slow, fragmented and outdated. Securing the necessary approvals can take six to nine months, involving multiple institutions and layers of bureaucracy
. Drivers who are willing to comply are often caught in delays beyond their control, sometimes even facing penalties while their applications are still pending.
This is where the contradiction becomes clear.
Government is demanding rapid compliance from a sector, while the very system meant to enable that compliance struggles to function efficiently. Deadlines are imposed, yet processes remain cumbersome. Enforcement is prioritised, while reform lags behind.
It reflects a deeper issue: an obsession with controlling the solution, rather than fixing the underlying problem.
Banning or restricting e-hailing services will not improve the traditional taxi system. It will not make it safer, more efficient or more reliable. It will simply remove an alternative that has forced the market to confront its own shortcomings.
The path forward is not complicated, but it does require a shift in approach.
Fix the permitting system. Streamline and digitise it. Align regulation with the pace of modern transport services. At the same time, enforce compliance across all operators, fairly and consistently.
And crucially, address the longstanding issues within the taxi industry itself. Service quality, safety and accountability cannot remain secondary concerns.
Because in the end, commuters are not choosing sides in a regulatory battle. They are choosing what works.
If policy continues to focus on shutting down solutions instead of fixing what made them necessary, the country risks protecting inefficiency at the expense of progress.
*Briefly is a weekly column that is opinionated and analytical. It sifts through the noise to make sense of the numbers, trends and headlines shaping business and the economy with insight, wit and just enough scepticism to keep things interesting. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE NOT OUR OWN, we simply relay them as part of the conversation.
