Fact check – Did Namibia’s president reject a Gates Foundation hormonal-IUD trial?

President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah (image source)

Over the past 48 hours, social media posts have asserted that Namibia’s President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah “rejected a proposal from the Gates Foundation to conduct trials of a hormonal intrauterine device (IUD).” The claim spread across Facebook and Instagram slides and influencer reels, often using identical language. Crucially, Namibia’s Presidency has denied that such a proposal was presented to, or rejected by, the head of state. A widely shared local radio report summarised the Presidency’s position: there was no such decision by the president, and viral posts are misleading. In other words, the eye-catching claim is not backed by official documentation.

Hormonal IUDs like Mirena and Liletta are not experimental novelties; they have been in widespread clinical use for years. In 2022, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration extended Mirena’s approved duration of use from seven to eight years, based on evidence of safety and efficacy in extended-use cohorts. While there is ongoing scientific work to refine how long existing devices can be used, advancing contraceptive options does not necessarily require “new” human trials in every country, because much of the foundational data already exists.

From an ethical perspective, established frameworks for such research are robust and specific. The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidelines and WHO toolkits lay out requirements for scientific value, fair participant selection, favourable risk–benefit balance, independent ethical review, informed consent, and post-trial access. This means that if a study were to happen in Namibia (or anywhere), it must be responsive to local health needs, reviewed by competent ethics bodies, and conducted with clear consent and protections. None of the viral posts referenced any registered trial protocol number, ethics-board decision, or principal investigator.

The “rejection” claim hinges entirely on viral social content rather than traceable primary documents. Multiple posts have circulated on Facebook and Instagram, and a Kenya-based blog repackaged the claim. These are not primary sources. They do not point to a Namibian cabinet minute, a health-ministry memo, a Gates Foundation letter, or a clinical-trials registry entry. By contrast, the public denial from the Namibian side is an attributable statement. As journalists, it is our duty to weigh the denial more heavily than unsourced social media claims.

However, the conversation has reopened a broader and valid debate: how to ensure contraceptive research in Africa is ethical, non-coercive, and aligned with local priorities. Scholarly literature underscores known risks, weak oversight in some settings, and power imbalances with funders, but also notes that exclusion from research can harm women by denying access to innovation and data that reflect their realities. The way forward is neither blanket rejection nor uncritical acceptance, but rigorous, transparent, locally governed research where there is a clear health need.

Bottom line: There is no verified evidence that President Nandi-Ndaitwah “rejected” a Gates Foundation hormonal-IUD trial. Namibia’s Presidency has publicly pushed back on the claim. Hormonal IUDs already have extensive safety and efficacy data, including eight-year approvals in the U.S., and any new trials would have to pass stringent ethical review. Until a registered protocol and official Namibian documentation appear, the viral narrative should be treated as unproven.