Curating data for political purposes: NSA credibility destroyed.

Rowland Brown
Opinion

On the 30th of October, the Namibia Statistics Agency’s (NSA) released the 2023 Census report, around a year after the data collection for the same was completed. However, despite collecting labour force data and employment/unemployment data, in a turn of events more worthy of North Korea than Namibia, this was excluded from the report, a notable change to previous Census reports.

This means that the latest official unemployment data we have is the 2018 figures. These were dismal: 33.4% unemployment. Subsequent to that, we went through two more years of little to no growth, followed by COVID. At the same time, 250,000 to 300,000 young persons will have entered the labour force, and while it is possible that the economic growth of the last couple of years may have created some jobs, there is no chance that these will be of a comparable magnitude. Things can only have got worse. Based on our best assessment, the best we can do without data, unemployment must now be above 40%.

However, the level is irrelevant. The role of a statistics agency is to collect and disseminate data and information, not to curate it for political or other purposes. It is certainly not to share data only if that data fits a particular political or popular narrative. As a result, this decision raises profound concerns about the NSA’s independence, transparency, and integrity. To say the least, it is a deeply worrying indication of slipping standards and apparent political interference.

For those of us who work closely with socioeconomic data, this decision is nothing short of exasperating—six years have passed without critical updates. We remain completely in the dark on the impacts of major events, including the COVID pandemic and the impact of President Geingob’s second term. To this end, we have now gone through a full term of Government in which we have received no update on unemployment levels.

This decision by the NSA, as well as the general failure to produce socioeconomic data for six years, is linked to a broader problem. As a nation, we often look for external excuses for our stagnation, but perhaps the problem lies within. Have our standards eroded so far that we simply no longer expect performance? Serious countries take unemployment reporting seriously, with quarterly updates, some with monthly high-frequency trend indications in-between. If our statisticians are more focused on choosing which truths to tell than collecting and disseminating data, they have lost sight of their role. Putting politics and popularity above truth and degrading standards to these sorts of levels is nothing short of treasonous. Low standards are a cancer that eats its way through a country and society.

While this may seem hyperbolic, ask yourself this: How can the Government govern or make policy without essential data? No private business, state-owned entity, or even a small NGO would operate in such a data vacuum. How does the Government assess whether policies are working? Even from a purely self-serving perspective, how can decision-makers gauge if they are aligned with the needs and opinions of the voting public? A lack of standards on data collection frequency becomes a lack of standards on monitoring and evaluation, which becomes a lack of standards on implementation, which becomes a lack of standards on human development. By the point one gets to suppressing data because it is negative for those in power, one has done a full circle on this lack of standards—a lack of human development means a lack of standards in data dissemination.

While the NSA has failed to provide this data, it is worth noting that Afrobarometer, operating on a fraction of the NSA’s budget, has managed to offer much-needed labour market insights, running surveys in 2019, 2021, and 2024—and releasing their results after each survey. According to their findings, unemployment has increased by 22% since 2017 and by 13% since 2019. Based on their findings, 57.8% of people who are of working age and would like to work are unemployed. Only 30.2% of the same group are full-time employed. While their methodology is different from that of the NSA, the trends are likely comparable. It is thus no wonder that those who assess the Census data through political or popularity lenses are likely to want to suppress the latest official figures.

This incident has deeply marred the NSA’s reputation and is a regrettable chapter in its history. It can no longer be trusted to provide complete, accurate, and impartial data on Namibia. The solution here is both urgent and straightforward: release the withheld data and investigate the processes and motivations that led to its suppression. Further, those who put political expedience over objectivity should be removed from office, as they can clearly not be trusted to be objective with national data.

Transparency is the foundation of public trust, and if there is to be any hope of restoring the NSA’s credibility, this must happen without delay. It won’t resolve the issues at hand, but it may begin to rebuild the agency’s standing as an objective and reliable institution.

---

Cirrus Securities
35 Schanzen Road, Windhoek, Namibia
info@cirrus.com.na

Directors: Frank Fredericks, Madelein Smith, Romé Mostert,
www.cirrus.com.na/

DISCLAIMER
This publication has been issued by Cirrus Securities (Pty) Ltd (“Cirrus”). It is confidential and issued for the information of Cirrus’ clients only. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part without Cirrus’ written permission. Any unauthorized use, duplication, redistribution, or disclosure is prohibited by law. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources which and persons whom Cirrus believes to be reliable but is not guaranteed for accuracy, completeness, or otherwise. Any views reflect the current views of Cirrus. All opinions expressed and recommendations made are as of the date of this publication and are subject to change without notice.

Cirrus provides this publication for information purposes only, and this publication is not to be construed as providing investment services in any jurisdiction where the provision of such services is not permitted. No information contained herein, no opinion expressed, and no recommendation made constitutes a representation by Cirrus or a solicitation for the purchase of securities mentioned herein, and Cirrus has no responsibility whatsoever arising herefrom or in consequence hereof.

This publication does not attempt to identify the nature of the specific market or other risks associated with an investment. Cirrus confirms that this publication does not constitute investment advice and that it does not act as an investment advisor to its clients. Securities or financial instruments mentioned herein may not be suitable for all investors, and investors must make their own investment decisions using their own independent advisors as they believe necessary and based upon their specific financial situations and investment objectives. A security’s or a firm’s past investment performance is not a guarantee or predictor of future investment performance.

Cirrus and/or its employees may from time to time own securities mentioned herein.

ANALYST CERTIFICATION
The research analyst who prepared this report certifies that the views expressed in the report accurately reflect the research analyst’s personal views about any or all of the subject securities and issuers and that no part of his/her compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to specific recommendations or views contained in this report.

LEGAL ENTITIES INVOLVED IN PRODUCING CIRRUS RESEARCH
Cirrus Capital (Pty) Ltd