Watchdogs must guard own credibility as well

In any functioning democracy, opposition parties, the media and civil society, carry enormous responsibilities, beyong bashing, criticising and politics. Predominatly, for political parties, such as the official opposition, this platform is a constitutional instrument designed to scrutinise power, question executive conduct and protect the public interest. It is for this reason that when the leader of the opposition speaks, the nation expects diligence, evidence and integrity.
The recent assertions eminanting from the opposition cirles that President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s family has interests in the oil and gas sector amount to a grave allegation beacause claims of conflict of interest at the centre of any government, are not minor political remarks. They strike at the integrity of the presidency, the credibility of the state itself and such claims require proof
The offices opposition leaders are a watchdog office whose authority is derived from their commitment to accountability and truth. Therefore, when allegations are made without substantiated evidence placed before the public, the institution itself suffers. A watchdog that fails to verify information before making serious claims risks being perceived as reckless rather than responsible.
This is not about shielding those in power from scrutiny but on the contrary, scrutiny is essential. This is due to the reality that the public has a right to know whether public officials or their families hold interests that may compromise governance, at any point at time. Be that as it may, the burden of proof rests squarely on the one making the allegation. If there are company records, share them. If there are official filings, produce them, if there are images or documents that substantiate the claim, present them clearly and transparently so.
Failing to do this undermines more than a political opponent as it further erodes the credibility of the entire watchdog sector. The opposition, the media, civil society and other organisations form a collective accountability framework. Public confidence in such framewrok weakens all together when one actor advances unverified accusations.
The impact is unfathomable and the next time genuine evidence of misconduct surfaces, will the public respond with urgency or with scepticism. When watchdog institutions are seen to speak without proof, they risk trivialising their own mandate and the entire sector. They make it easier for those in power to dismiss even legitimate concerns as political noise.
Accountability requires discipline which in turn requires careful verification, legal grounding and adherence to the principle of probability. It demands that serious claims be supported by serious evidence and anything less, reduces the watchdog function to political rhetoric.
Opposition should elevate democratic standards, not dilute them. Namibia needs vigilant watchdogs, a fearless opposition a probing media and an active civil society, but above all, it needs integrity in the exercise of those roles. Without evidence, oversight becomes accusation and without verification, accountability becomes spectacle.