A report compiled by a standing committee of the Namibian parliament confirms that even before it starts sucking oil out of the Okavango Basin, a Canadian company that is controversially prospecting for oil in the Kavango East and Kavango West regions of Namibia has already broken a series in that country. The company is called Reconnaissance Energy Africa (ReconAfrica) and has two subsidiaries: Recon Namibia (REN) and Recon Botswana (REB).
Following domestic and international uproar over the company’s activities, the Namibian parliament tasked the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to undertake a multi-pronged investigation into the issue. One of the objectives of the enquiry was to “establish compliance with the national laws by REN and to make informed recommendations to the (House) Assembly.”
In its investigations, the Committee found that REN started operating in January 2021 without a leasehold certificate as required by the law. Instead, the company obtained a consent letter from a regional tribal authority (the Sambyu Traditional Authority), which letter was itself issued two months after the company had started operations. It later turned out that the traditional authority itself was actually consulted after the leasehold certificate had been issued.
REN activities include drilling water wells, for which legal permission has to be obtained. The Committee found that REN drilled boreholes without water permits in “clear contravention” of the Water Act and the Water Resources Management Act and that while the company would later procure such permits in June 2021, that was “long after” REN had already drilled the boreholes.
“The question is, who authorised REN to start operating without having first complied with all the legal requirements such as obtaining a consent letter, water permits and leasehold?,” poses the report. “The Committee could not establish who authorised the go-ahead. Neither REN nor [Offices, Ministries and Agencies] that were consulted were willing to divulge information to this effect.”
Certain government institutions that handled the REN matter have themselves flouted the norms of established procedure. Following a meeting with the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Committee determined that the latter awarded the company an exploration licence “without consulting key stakeholders such as the custodian of the land, the traditional authorities and the Land Board.”
The Committee also held hearings with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform which “acknowledged that ReconAfrica did not apply for water use permits at first though they drilled six water abstraction boreholes to date for project operations and four for the communities.” The Committee found that “in spite of the company having started to use water without permits, no penalty was issued for the violation.” The company was instead asked to comply and apply for the permits after the fact. The Committee faults the Ministry for having “failed to carry out their duties in implementing the provisions of the Water Act of 1956 by not instituting punitive measures on REN for failing to obtain water permits beforehand.”
The Committee determined that not only did Ministry officials look the other way when REN broke the law, it also “acted in a manner that can be construed as favouritism for failing to take action on the company despite drilling unsanctioned boreholes.”
There was also an incident that strongly suggests that REN feels more powerful than the government. The incident was one in which REN denied Ministry officials access to its drilling sites. The report raises questions about the “seriousness” of the affected officials for failing to report the matter to their supervisors.
“The Committee is extremely dismayed and condemn the attitude REN displayed for refusing entry to the Ministry officials to the drilling sites,” the report says. “The refusal to access the sites clearly indicates the Ministry is not acting as per their mandate. Ministry officials are mandated to visit company sites in execution of their duties and thus should not have been hindered. All companies need to be made aware about this important mandate of the Ministry.”
The Kavango East Land Board was found to have shirked its responsibility to ensure that REN complied with the law. Says the report: “The Land Board has the powers to stop operations of any company if it is established that they failed to comply with the law. For example, operating without a licence in the case of ReconAfrica. However, in this case, the Land Board failed to execute their mandate and ReconAfrica continued operating since January without any leasehold.” The Committee says that the Land Board in question should have instituted the applicable punitive measures against REN in line with the Communal Land Act.
While most communities told the Committee that the Canadian company had consulted with them, the Committee found that in Gcaru village in Ncuncuni Constituency, residents had been kept in the dark about some of their rights. In order to access certain areas of geological interest, the company “normally asks for consent to pass through fields and villages.” Resultantly, a consent form is filled out and residents whose villages and fields are affected are entitled to payment. The Committee found that not only were residents kept in the dark about their entitlement to such payment, none had actually been paid.
The Committee also raised doubts about the nature of the consultation that the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism claimed to have done: “The Ministry could not provide proof of them having consulted traditional authorities in the two regions. Records which were provided show only consultations with regional governors and the regional council structures. The use of newspapers to advertise any objections appears not to be effective nor adequate for people, and in particular those in rural areas.”
As part redress for the company’s wrongdoing, the Committee recommends that the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Land Reform should take punitive action against REN for failure to comply with the law. It also recommends that Ministry officials should also be charged for “dishonesty and failure to carry out their assigned duties which constitute incompetence.”
