Interesting that it is the first we hear of it. Receipts, and booking information include hotline numbers, and available operators that would be in touch with ministries immediately. There is a backup system, why not use it? Even more disappointing: “as to be feared”. Wow!
That’s after numerous times we had the gates “tested”. The matter will however be taken up with Ministry, immediately, even though we have no idea who the client is? Is that available? The foundation is happy to refund ANY additional costs. Alas, we don’t know who it is.

Furthermore, Criticising the online system, seems is knee-jerk reaction, which we could of course understand. But it’s not the system. The form used is a form provided directly by:
MEFT
Similar rejections have taken place with say a manual permit obtained from Swakopmund MEFT office for Etosha, and the officials not allowing it at the gate, because it looks different (a case with various operators we have spoken to). Long story short, phone calls with clients and then gates, a nice hullabaloo later, and they were still allowed to enter. Reason behind the madness? There’s always that ONE official that sits in his/her own powerhouse and at that moment only their opinion matters.
Do we now throw the Swakopmund MEFT or the Windhoek MEFT offices under the bus because that is where the permits were obtained?

Very clearly, it remains based on an individual at the gate that would want to enforce an unvalidated “power” just because of the lack of paying attention to what is a legal form/permit or not.

As said, the matter will be brought to the attention of the Ministry. But I can assure anyone that there is NOTHING “as to he feared” that an assisting online platform is to blame for the human resistance factor, that nor a MEFT office or system aiding in that, are at fault with.