NAMIBIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tshuka Luvindao and Azaria Wallace, Dr. Weder, Kruger & Haikali Inc.
Arbitration and Administrative Law at the Wellhead: A Tri-Modal Framework for Resolving Disputes in Namibia’s Upstream Petroleum Sector Introduction Final investment decisions on the Orange Basin dis - coveries are expected by 2026. These developments are likely to increase the importance of an effective dispute-resolution framework for Namibia’s upstream petroleum sector. When production starts, so will the disputes – and Namibia is not ready for them. The legal architecture for resolving upstream disputes has received limited attention. Most of what passes for debate is about institutional placement, not dispute resolution. Two arguments dominate. The first, advanced by writ - ers like Kovimariva Mungunda, calls for a dedicated Petroleum Tribunal. The second, embodied in the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill [B.12 – 2025], now at Committee Stage, pro - poses amendments to the executive locus of regula - tory power. However, both approaches leave broader dispute-resolution questions unresolved. Upstream disputes in Namibia already run through three parallel forums: contractual arbitration under Section 13 of the Petroleum (Exploration and Pro - duction) Act 2 of 1991 (PEPA); the Ancillary Rights Commission under Part IX; and Article 18 judicial review in the High Court. Each was designed for a different purpose, in a different era, and none of them speaks to the others. A single set of facts can yield three proceedings, three standards of review, and three potentially inconsistent outcomes. This creates procedural fragmentation and potential uncertainty for investors, regulators and affected stakeholders. A new tribunal will not fix that. Neither will the Amendment Bill. Accordingly, Namibia may benefit from integrated dispute architecture, imposed by statute, enforceable in practice. The rest of this article makes that case. Statutory architecture: a tri-modal framework Take each in turn. First, contractual arbitration. Sec - tion 13 (2)(i) of PEPA lets the minister write into any petroleum agreement a clause for “arbitration in the event of any dispute which may arise in the appli - cation of any term or condition contained in such agreement, whether in terms of the provisions of the
Arbitration Act, 1965 (Act 42 of 1965), or by way of any international arbitration tribunal specified in such agreement”. Section 16 (3)(b) goes further: where a licence holder and a landowner cannot agree on the price for land they are forced to sell because of petroleum operations, “the price and mode of pay - ment shall be fixed by arbitration”. The Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 governs domestically. The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 40 of 1977 governs enforcement of foreign awards. Second, the Ancillary Rights Commission. Part IX of PEPA (Sections 54 to 61) sets it up. There are three members appointed by the President. Although its powers are limited in scope, they remain significant in practice. Under Section 56, the Commission can grant a licence holder rights of entry, pipeline laying, water sourcing, and disposal of waste – the operation - al rights without which an exploration or production licence is so much paper. Under Section 59 it fixes compensation where parties cannot agree. Its orders bind (Section 57 (4)). Appeals lie to the High Court (Section 61). In everything but name this is a special - ist statutory tribunal with quasi-judicial powers. The petroleum-tribunal debate has somehow overlooked it. Third, administrative law. Article 18 of the Namibian Constitution requires every administrative body and every administrative official to act fairly and reason - ably and to comply with the requirements imposed by common law and any relevant legislation. Article 25 makes those rights enforceable. Almost every ministe - rial decision under PEPA, to issue, renew, transfer or cancel a licence (Sections 11, 19, 27 and 34); to direct good oilfield practices (Section 21); and to declare a petroleum field (Section 42), is an administrative action subject to review on Article 18 grounds. Before turning to the silo problem, one further instru - ment complicates the picture. Regulations made under Section 4A(2)(b) of the Petroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 (GN 93 of 2003, Government Gazette 2970, 29 April 2003) set up a detailed arbitra - tion regime for downstream disputes between whole - salers and operators. Regulation 19 allows consoli - dation where the dispute “is substantially related to the dispute being arbitrated and involves a common
720 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook