A growing number of graduates are finding themselves in an impossible predicament, locked out of the job market by the very institutions that were meant to prepare them for it. Student representative bodies have intensified their criticism of a widespread policy among institutions of higher learning: withholding academic records, transcripts, and qualifications over outstanding student fees. This practice has created a debilitating catch-22, where graduates need their qualifications to secure employment, but they cannot obtain these crucial documents until they pay off debts—a feat that is nearly impossible without an income. As the debate escalates, stakeholders are questioning whether this punitive approach serves anyone’s best interests or simply traps a generation of educated individuals in a cycle of debt and unemployment, ultimately hindering national economic progress. The core of the issue lies in a fundamental conflict between institutional financial sustainability and the educational mission to empower students for a successful future.
1. A Cycle of Debt and Exclusion
The policy of withholding academic documents due to unpaid fees has been condemned by student leaders as a primary driver of a vicious cycle of poverty and exclusion for thousands of graduates. According to Johannes Malapi, the secretary for information and publicity for the Student Union of Namibia (SUN), this approach effectively punishes students long after they have completed their academic requirements. While acknowledging the financial pressures that universities face, Malapi argues that the current system is counterproductive. It fails to help institutions recover their funds because it simultaneously blocks the only viable path for graduates to repay their debts: gainful employment. This deadlock leaves them unable to apply for jobs, pursue further studies, or otherwise contribute to the economy in their chosen fields. The practice transforms a symbol of achievement—a degree or diploma—into a barrier, perpetuating a state of financial dependency and preventing skilled individuals from becoming productive members of society.
Furthermore, while some measures have been introduced to alleviate the burden, they have proven to be insufficient for a significant portion of affected graduates. The debt relief program offered by the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund (NSFAF), for instance, has been welcomed as a positive step but criticized for its limited scope. The program operates with strict eligibility categories, often excluding graduates based on their year of graduation or other specific criteria. Compounding this issue is the fact that assistance is contingent on available funding and is distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. This structure inevitably leaves many deserving graduates without any relief, still locked out of accessing their qualifications. Student advocates emphasize that while such programs are beneficial, they cannot be the sole solution. They represent a temporary fix for a systemic problem that requires a more comprehensive and sustainable policy overhaul to truly address the widespread nature of student debt and its crippling consequences on graduates’ careers.
2. Calls for Policy Reform and Administrative Efficiency
Student organizations are unified in their call for an immediate and thorough review of policies that permit higher learning institutions to withhold academic documents. Abel Miguel, the national secretary for academics, sports, arts, and culture for the National African Students’ Association (NASA), stressed that while the financial challenges faced by universities are valid, the current practice fundamentally undermines the purpose of education itself, which is to empower individuals and foster national development. Echoing this sentiment, Jessy Abraham, spokesperson for the Namibia National Students Organisation (Nanso), highlighted the long-standing opposition to this policy, noting that a resolution advocating for debt-free education was passed as far back as 2015. Both organizations argue for a shift toward more humane and practical repayment arrangements that do not obstruct a graduate’s entry into the workforce. They propose that all students, whether funded by NSFAF or self-funded, should be granted access to their academic results and transcripts regardless of their outstanding balances.
Beyond the immediate issue of debt, student leaders have also pointed to significant administrative delays within universities that further disadvantage graduates. Abraham pointed out that students often have to wait until March or April for their academic records to be updated to reflect their graduation status. This bureaucratic lag effectively delays their readiness for the job market by up to four months, placing them at a severe competitive disadvantage. During this critical period, job opportunities may be missed, and graduates are left in a state of uncertainty, unable to provide potential employers with the necessary verification of their qualifications. This administrative inefficiency compounds the financial barrier, creating a two-pronged obstacle for new entrants to the workforce. Consequently, calls for reform are not limited to financial policies but also extend to improving internal university processes to ensure that graduates can access their documents promptly upon completing their studies, enabling a smoother transition from education to employment.
3. The Institutional Stance on Debt Settlement
In response to the growing criticism, some institutions have outlined their current protocols for addressing the issue. Simon Namesho, a spokesperson for the University of Namibia (UNAM), clarified that a formal debt settlement arrangement exists between the university and the Namibia Students Financial Assistance Fund. This mechanism is available to both NSFAF-funded and self-funded students who find themselves unable to settle their accounts. According to Namesho, the established process requires affected students to proactively approach NSFAF to enter into a formal debt settlement agreement. Once this agreement is finalized and approved, NSFAF issues a settlement confirmation letter to the student. This letter then serves as the key for unlocking their academic records; students can submit it to the university’s administration as proof of their commitment to resolving their debt, which in turn allows for the release of their transcripts and qualifications. This pathway provides a structured, albeit multi-step, solution for graduates who are able to navigate the NSFAF system.
However, the response from the higher education sector has not been uniform. When approached for comment on the matter, Cindy Van Wyk, a spokesperson for the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), stated that the university would not be issuing a response at this stage. This silence from one of the country’s prominent technological institutions leaves its position on the contentious issue ambiguous. In the absence of a clear statement or a proposed alternative pathway, students and the public are left to speculate on its policies regarding student debt and the withholding of qualifications. The lack of engagement from NUST stands in contrast to UNAM’s more transparent approach and highlights a potential divergence in how different institutions are addressing this critical issue. This variance underscores the need for a standardized, sector-wide policy that student organizations have been advocating for, ensuring that all graduates are treated equitably regardless of their alma mater.
A Path Forward Through Dialogue
The extensive discussions surrounding the withholding of student qualifications brought critical issues to the forefront of the national conversation on education and economic opportunity. Student bodies effectively articulated the debilitating paradox that trapped graduates in a cycle of unemployment and debt, while university representatives outlined the financial pressures that led to such policies. The debate highlighted a fundamental disconnect between institutional financial models and the ultimate goal of empowering students. As a result of these sustained calls for change, stakeholders recognized the necessity for a more collaborative approach. Government bodies, university administrators, and student leaders began engaging in more structured dialogues aimed at reforming existing policies. These conversations explored alternative debt repayment models that did not penalize graduates at the most crucial stage of their careers, focusing on solutions that balanced institutional sustainability with the imperative of national development.
