NAMIBIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tshuka Luvindao and Azaria Wallace, Dr. Weder, Kruger & Haikali Inc.
question or questions of fact or law” and the other party consents. It is the only Namibian petroleum-spe - cific instrument with explicit consolidation language. Anyone drafting an upstream reform should read it closely. Each forum was carefully designed to address specific categories of disputes. None is necessarily defective in isolation. The problem is that nothing connects them. An investor whose exploration licence is can - celled may simultaneously face a land-access dispute before the Ancillary Rights Commission and a roy - alty dispute under Section 62 PEPA before an arbitral tribunal, all arising from the same operational facts. Three sets of pleadings. Three different standards of review. Three potentially inconsistent outcomes. No statute, no regulation, no rule of court addresses how these proceedings should be sequenced or harmo - International arbitral practice has thought about frag - mentation, but only within a single mode. Haigh and Beke, writing in the Global Arbitration Review Guide to Energy Arbitrations, set out the standard analysis. In Cambodia Power Company v Kingdom of Cambodia , Electricité du Cambodge (ICSID Case No ARB/09/18) the tribunal identified three independent grounds on which related energy agreements could be consoli - dated: clause-precedence, collective-agreement, and consolidation-provision grounds. The Karah Bodas award – Karah Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertam- bangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (2004) 364 F 3d (5th Cir), survived enforcement challenge in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in part because the underlying Indonesian geother - mal contracts cross-referenced each other. But all of that addresses co-ordination within arbitration. It does nothing for the harder problem: co-ordination across arbitration, statutory tribunal, and constitu - tional review. That is the problem Namibia has. The practical consequences are familiar to any litigator who has run parallel proceedings. Costs may increase significantly. Each forum demands its own counsel, its own evidence, its own preparation. Awards conflict, a compensation order from the Ancillary Rights Com - mission can sit awkwardly against an arbitral award nised. That is the silo problem. The forum cascade problem
between the licence holder and the State on the same facts. The asymmetry between parties may widen. International investors can fund parallel tracks; the State and local participants typically cannot. The Dutco problem makes this worse. In Siemens AG and BKMI Industrieanlagen GmbH v Dutco Construc- tion Co (French Court of Cassation, 7 January 1992), the Cour de Cassation set aside a multi-party arbitral appointment because the principle of equal treat - ment in tribunal constitution had been compromised. In France, that principle cannot be waived before a dispute arises. Namibia currently has no compa - rable domestic jurisprudence and, for the reasons addressed next, no New York Convention framework to absorb the blow if a Namibian-seated multi-party award is challenged on similar grounds. Cascade risk plus weak enforcement is a real exposure. The enforcement gap Namibia has not acceded to the New York Conven - tion. It signed the ICSID Convention on 26 October 1998 and never ratified it. Forty-two of Africa’s fifty- four states are now party to the New York Convention. Namibia is in the dwindling minority that is not. The domestic substitute is the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 40 of 1977, inherited from South Africa at independence. It provides for enforcement in the High Court, but on narrower grounds than Article V of the Convention and without the harmonised refusal-of-enforcement framework that international investors expect. Section 13 (2)(i) of PEPA invites international arbitration. The enforcement architecture does not back the invitation. That is the gap. The Petroleum Tribunal debate and the Amendment Bill The argument for a specialist Petroleum Tribunal is the strongest case for reform currently in print, and I should be candid about it: a Petroleum Tribunal was the model I started with myself. The High Court bench cannot, without serious resourcing, develop the tech - nical fluency that production sharing arrangements, cost recovery audits, abandonment liability under Part XA, and fiscal-stability claims demand. The intuition
721 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook