What are the most significant cases, projects and/or transactions that you and/or your legal team have recently been involved in?
One of my core responsibilities is overseeing all litigation involving NAMFISA. This includes matters before the Supreme Court, the High Court, and various tribunals, such as the Appeal Board established under the NAMFISA Act and the Appeal Board established in terms of the Financial Intelligence Act.

As an administrative body, NAMFISA’s decisions are frequently subject to legal challenge. A key matter currently before the courts is the constitutional challenge brought by microlenders in the High Court of Namibia concerning the Microlending Act. As the case remains pending and no judgment has been delivered, I am unable to discuss the merits at this stage. For reference, the matter is cited as: AISO Cash Loan CC & Others v President of the Republic of Namibia & Others, Case No. HC-MD-CIV-ACT-OTH-2018/04499.

Our legal division also played an integral role in drafting the Consumer Credit Bill. This Bill aims to establish regulatory oversight of credit provision and debt collection, with a strong focus on enhancing consumer protection.

How do you approach managing legal aspects during periods of instability or crisis to ensure the organisation’s resilience?
NAMFISA operates through an inter-departmental structure that enables different teams to collaborate in achieving the organisation’s strategic objectives. This approach ensures that diverse expertise is consulted and integrated into our processes.

The same structure supports our response during periods of crisis. We proactively identify potential risks and incorporate them into our policies and procedures wherever possible. When a crisis does arise, our collaborative framework allows us to respond collectively and effectively.

We also conduct regular assessments of business risks and continuously explore opportunities for improvement.

In recent years, we have paid particular attention to legislative changes, adapting our internal processes to remain aligned with emerging developments and to minimise instability during uncertain periods.

What factors influence your team’s decision to use external legal services versus handling matters in-house, and what criteria are used to evaluate their performance?

NAMFISA employs well-trained and skilled admitted legal practitioners. However, because legal practitioners working in corporate roles may not appear in court, our in-house lawyers are unable to represent NAMFISA in the Supreme Court, High Court or Magistrates’ Courts. As a result, we must instruct external legal representatives to act on our behalf in these matters.

While we aim to handle as much work as possible internally, we engage external counsel where specialist expertise is required or when our internal capacity is limited.

We assess the performance of external practitioners by requiring regular progress updates, maintaining close collaboration throughout the matter, holding frequent consultations, and evaluating the outcomes and effectiveness of their work.