Trends and Developments
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 discoveries 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 writers 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, proposes amendments to the executive locus of regulatory 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 Production) 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. Section 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 application 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 payment 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 operational 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 specialist 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 reasonably and to comply with the requirements imposed by common law and any relevant legislation. Article 25 makes those rights enforceable. Almost every ministerial 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 instrument 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 arbitration regime for downstream disputes between wholesalers and operators. Regulation 19 allows consolidation where the dispute “is substantially related to the dispute being arbitrated and involves a common question or questions of fact or law” and the other party consents. It is the only Namibian petroleum-specific 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 cancelled may simultaneously face a land-access dispute before the Ancillary Rights Commission and a royalty 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 harmonised. That is the silo problem.
The forum cascade problem
International arbitral practice has thought about fragmentation, 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 consolidated: clause-precedence, collective-agreement, and consolidation-provision grounds. The Karah Bodas award – Karah Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan 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 geothermal 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 constitutional 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 Commission can sit awkwardly against an arbitral award 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 Construction Co (French Court of Cassation, 7 January 1992), the Cour de Cassation set aside a multi-party arbitral appointment because the principle of equal treatment in tribunal constitution had been compromised. In France, that principle cannot be waived before a dispute arises. Namibia currently has no comparable 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 Convention. 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 technical fluency that production sharing arrangements, cost recovery audits, abandonment liability under Part XA, and fiscal-stability claims demand. The intuition that Namibia needs specialised forum capacity is right.
What changed my mind is what the Bill actually does. The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Amendment Bill [B.12 – 2025], introduced by the Minister of Industries, Mines and Energy on 4 February 2026 and now at Committee Stage, is not a dispute resolution reform. It primarily restructures institutional authority. It moves upstream regulatory authority from the Ministry to the Office of the President, sets up an Upstream Petroleum Unit, and replaces “Minister” with “President” across the operative provisions. The Director-General and Deputy Director-General will be appointed and removable by the President. A residual clause in the proposed Section 3A(3)(j) authorises the Unit to perform “any other function as required by law or the President”. That clause has rightly attracted commentary from the profession.
Limited attention has been paid to examining what these changes mean for dispute resolution. It deserves closer scrutiny. Relocating regulatory decision-making to the Presidency (which given our history we support) does not remove it from Article 18 review; a presidential decision in execution of a statute remains administrative action. But the political weight of suing the Office of the President is not the same as the political weight of suing a minister. Licence holders will likely think twice before instituting proceedings. This may have practical implications for administrative-law litigation as Mode Three becomes harder to use. The Bill says nothing about consolidation, the qualifications of Ancillary Rights Commissioners, or Namibia’s posture toward the New York Convention. Adding a separate Petroleum Tribunal to this picture, without addressing those silences, creates a fourth silo rather than providing a meaningful solution.
A proposed integrated architecture
The reform Namibia needs is not a new tribunal. It is a statutory dispute architecture, compulsory in every petroleum agreement and every licence, that tells the parties in advance how related disputes will be sequenced, where they will be heard, and on what enforcement footing. The individual elements are interdependent and only function effectively when implemented together.
The process begins with a mandatory pre-arbitral evaluation, modelled in regulation 3 of GN 93 of 2003. The evaluation panel should comprise three experts: one nominated by each party and a third appointed by mutual agreement or, failing agreement, by the Law Society. The process could within a 60-day period and culminate in a non-binding recommendation. Structured early evaluation will not resolve every dispute, but it can clarify the issues, distinguish genuine disagreements from tactical posturing, and reduce the parties’ appetite for the cascade to follow.
Disputes that survive evaluation should proceed to consolidated arbitration seated in Windhoek, under bespoke rules that borrow the Cambodia Power consolidation grounds, the LCIA-style multi-party joinder provisions, and the Dutco safeguard of party equality in tribunal constitution. The carve-out must be explicit: purely regulatory decisions issue, renewal, cancellation, and field designation remain reviewable under Article 18 and cannot be displaced into private arbitration. Some choices the State makes affect more than the contracting parties. Those choices should remain subject to public-law oversight.
Enforcement comes next and is the hardest piece. Namibia should accede to the New York Convention. That is the cleanest fix and should be a national priority. Until accession, the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 40 of 1977 should be amended to align with Article V of the Convention and to add petroleum-specific provisions. Arbitral awards in petroleum disputes should be enforceable as orders of the High Court on registration, subject only to the narrow grounds for setting aside in Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.
Finally, the Ancillary Rights Commission should do the work a Petroleum Tribunal would have done. Part IX of PEPA should be amended to expand the Commission’s jurisdiction over all operational disputes – land access, compensation, abandonment liability under Part XA, and decommissioning trust fund disputes under Section 68B. Its appointment architecture under Section 55, its procedural footing under the Commissions Act 8 of 1947, and its appeal route to the High Court under Section 61 already provide the institutional bones. Consideration should also be given to renaming the Commission the Petroleum Disputes Commission, and the legal, technical, and environmental qualifications of its members should be prescribed by statute.
Conclusion
Three forums, no co-ordination, and no enforcement backstop. That is the architecture Namibia is taking into its first production cycle. The Petroleum Tribunal debate has often framed the question as one of forum creation. It is not. Adding a fourth forum to three uncoordinated ones makes the silo problem worse. Real reform runs through the existing forums, not around them: pre-arbitral evaluation, consolidated arbitration with administrative-law carve-outs, enforcement reform tied to accession to the New York Convention, and a renamed and expanded Ancillary Rights Commission.
The Amendment Bill is the legislative vehicle. Whether Parliament uses it to address the dispute architecture or merely to relocate the regulatory office will tell us what kind of upstream sector we are building. The choice is being made now.
Click on the link to read our other articles: More Here
Follow us on social media for more regular updates: Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter