Namibia's new president vows to diversify economy, tackle joblessness
Namibia's newly elected President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah pledged on Friday, 21 March 2025 to boost investments in the agricultural sector and diversify the resource-focused economy in an attempt to address high unemployment rates
Nandi-Ndaitwah, 72, became Namibia's first female president after her SWAPO party, which has governed the nation of around 3 million people for more than three decades, secured victory in both the presidential and parliamentary elections in November.
Namibia has seen relatively strong economic growth in recent years, primarily due to investments in oil, gas and green hydrogen. But World Bank data indicate the southern African nation ranks second highest globally for income inequality.
"We are going to increase investments in the agriculture sector to increase output and meet domestic food requirements," Nandi-Ndaitwah said in her inaugural speech after being sworn in as president.
She also committed to diversifying the economy, enabling citizens to "derive maximum benefits from our country's natural resources, through value addition".
Diversification, she added, would "create jobs to take care of the unemployed, of which the majority are the youth."
She also stressed the need for maintaining high ethical standards among public servants and combating corruption.
SWAPO's public support has fallen in the last decade due to dissatisfaction with high unemployment, inequality and graft allegations. The party secured 57% of the votes in November's presidential race, compared to 87% in the 2014 election.
Nandi-Ndaitwah's inauguration was attended by dignitaries including seven incumbent and nine former African presidents.
Last month, Namibia's Supreme Court dismissed a challenge against the presidential election brought by opposition parties, which said the vote was flawed and potentially invalid due to an extension of voting for several days, among other issues.
All rights reserved. © 2022. Bizcommunity.com Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Etihad
3 hours ago
- Al Etihad
US top court lets Trump revoke legal status for 500,000 migrants
30 May 2025 22:37 Washington (AFP) The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday in his immigration crackdown, giving his administration the green light to revoke the legal status of half a million migrants from four Caribbean and Latin American decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian "parole" program launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of deportation. And it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy announcements that have prompted a flurry of the opinion sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had "plainly botched" their ruling and undervalued the "devastating consequences" to those potentially revoked program had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting some 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the "authoritarian" nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. 'Needless human suffering' "The court has plainly botched this assessment today," Justices Ketanji Brown Jackon and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries -- or opting to stay and risking imminent removal."At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact," Jackson of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programs. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the "district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions" by issuing the high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, evoking an "invasion" of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. But his program of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights.
Gulf Today
4 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Karoline Leavitt lashes out at judges blocking Trump orders
John Bowden, The Independent The White House ramped up its fury at federal judges Thursday after the latest move by a three-judge panel this week to block Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs infuriated officials up and down the administration. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt came to the briefing room podium already breathless as she vowed that the Trump administration would take Wednesday's ruling "to the Supreme Court," delivering a minutes-long, impassioned screed about the unprecedented rate at which Donald Trump's second presidency has been rebuffed by the Judicial Branch. The press secretary went on to note that in February, Trump's first full month in office, he was blocked from taking executive action more times than his predecessor was "in three years". But her comments bely an obvious counter-argument: that the Trump administration's unprecedented usage and scope of executive actions is itself to blame for its sky-high rate of failure at the district court level. And it's not as if district court judges are alone on an island in this regard. Despite having appointed three of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices, Trump has already seen defeat after defeat at the nation's highest court less than six months into his second term. Most recently, the Supreme Court blocked his administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, potentially the clearest example of how the second Trump administration has relied on unconventional to outright brazenly defiant legal tactics to defend the actions of the president and his team in court. A federal district court also halted Trump's outright ban on student visas for international students seeking to go to Harvard, the nation's oldest institution of higher learning, as the White House wages a one-sided ideological war on the school. Still, administration officials are waging war on the judiciary, labeling even conservative judges as "activist" if they rule against Trump. "There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process," Leavitt said from the podium in her opening remarks Thursday. "America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. "These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage," Leavitt accused, going on to say America's jurists "brazenly abuse their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump." She insisted that the court system risked turning America into a non-functioning country if judges continue to refuse to let the president have his way. News broke hours after Leavitt's briefing of a federal appeals court panel temporarily staying the lower court's ruling against Trump on tariffs. But at a press conference later in the afternoon, tensions were still high. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro lashed out at a reporter for The Independent, Andrew Feinberg, for asking about the frequency with which the administration attacks judges as "activists" when the president or his officials disagree with their rulings. "Who is this guy?" the hair-trigger Navarro railed, evading the question in the process. Leavitt's comments also conveniently ignore the fact that the Trump administration has been resisting repeated orders by judges, including those from the Supreme Court, to "facilitate" the return of a man whom the Justice Department's own attorneys have admitted was deported in violation of a judge's order prohibiting him from being sent to his home country. Top administration officials have challenged the order of the lower court, arguing that judges do not have the power to dictate American foreign policy under the Constitution and arguing that the man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is no longer legally the administration's burden. Stephen Miller, architect of the administration's mass deportation plans, also argued on Thursday that the US was facing a "judicial coup" and warned that "it is the end of democracy" if courts to not stop halting individual orders issued by the Trump administration. It is the end of democracy if not reversed.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants
The US Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump 's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the US, bolstering the Republican leader's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration 'parole' granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Mr Trump's predecessor Joe Biden. The move potentially exposes many of them to rapid removal while the case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Ms Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Ms Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Ms Jackson wrote, 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million non-citizens while their legal claims are pending'. Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit', allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Mr Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to deter illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border. Mr Trump called for the end of humanitarian parole programmes in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal'. The case is one of many that Mr Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body, seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 let the President end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Mr Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Mr Biden in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the country by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Mr Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration by those nationalities. The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued officials, claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Ms Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the programme's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Ms Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry', effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Mr Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short, given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Ms Talwani on Wednesday ordered the administration to resume processing applications for work permits or more lasting immigration status from migrants with parole status from Afghanistan, Latin America and Ukraine.
