http://news.radiovop.com/
16/02/2010
22:35:00
Harare, February 17, 2010 - Zimbabwe's Youth Development,
Indigenisation and
Empowerment Minister, Savior Kasukuwere has backed down
from implementing
his controversial indigenisation regulations gazetted two
weeks ago as
pressure mounted on Zimbabwe to review the legislation which
was widely
feared it would scare away investors.
The regulations,
which were ssupposed to set in motion the Indigenisation
Law passed by the
Zimbabwe Parliament prior to the controversial harmonised
elections in 2008,
would have seen whites ceding 51 percent of shareholding
in every company
capitalized to the tune of US$500 000 by 1 March. Failure
to do so was going
to attract a jail sentence of up to five years.
Zimbabwe Prime Minister
and leader of the main faction of the Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC)
Morgan Tsvangirai, last week dismissed the
indigenisation regulations as
null and void because there had been no
consultation as prescribed by a
political power sharing agreement signed by
President Robert Mugabe and
Tsvangirai.
Tsvangirai's spokesperson, James Maridadi, said: "What
Zimbabweans want is a
real economy, with jobs, growth and food security.
Instead, these
regulations would have plunged us back into the sort of
economic decline and
wide-scale job losses we saw as a result of the corrupt
farm acquisition
programme. And all for the sake of further enriching the
political eliteini
who have already acquired millions through so-called land
reform, at the
expense of the rest of the population."
In the past
weeks there had been an outcry from trade unions, employers, and
economists.
Kasukuwere on Tuesday agreed to shelve the regulations
and consult with
other Government Ministers, particularly with Elton
Mangoma, Minister of
Economic Planning and Investment.
"It's back to
the drawing board to devise a true empowerment policy that
will meet the
needs of the people, and drive economic growth and job
creation," government
sources said last night.
"The Prime Minister has always been a strong
advocate of policies that
empower the poor and marginalised," said
Maridadi. "That is why empowerment
was a central platform of the MDC
manifesto in the last elections. But to
the Prime Minister, empowerment
means creating opportunities for people,
jobs, education, and hope. The
proposed regulations would have achieved the
exact opposite. That is why
the Prime Minister opposed them in the
strongest terms."
The
regulations were gazetted without any prior consultation within the
Cabinet
Committees or the Council of Ministers, in clear breach of Cabinet
Rules and
the Constitution.
http://www.zimonline.co.za/
by Own Correspondent Thursday 18 February
2010
HARARE - Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said on
Wednesday extension of
sanctions by the European Union (EU) bloc on his ZANU
PF party elite was a
deliberate ploy by the West to undermine development in
the country.
"We know their attitude, they don't want anyone, any country
in the
developing world to make any meaningful developmental strides,"
Mugabe told
reporters after opening a Tourism Investment Conference that
began in Harare
on Tuesday.
"That attitude is more pronounced even in
regard to Zimbabwe. We have
resources which they envy natural resources that
belong to us, there is the
issue of land here. When they make those noises
it is because they have lost
that which they occupied illegally, which is
now in our possession."
The veteran leader, who also threatened yesterday
to sell the country's
diamonds outside the Kimberley Process (KP), said
Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangira's MDC party was united with his party on the
issue of sanctions.
"We are in agreement, they might think it is
difficult, because of the past
but we are all agreed that the sanctions must
go.
The EU which imposed sanctions against Mugabe eight years ago as
punishment
for failure to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law
on Monday
extended the targeted sanctions for another 12 months citing lack
of
progress in implementing the September 2008 global political agreement
(GPA).
The GPA is the power-sharing agreement signed by Mugabe and
former
opposition leader Tsvangirai at the behest of southern African
leaders and
which last February gave birth to the Harare coalition
government.
The EU, however, lifted sanctions on some individuals and
companies,
including Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company and the Industrial
Development
Corporation of Zimbabwe saying there was no longer any reason to
keep them
on the list.
More than 200 individuals and 40 companies
with ties to Mugabe's ZANU POF
party are now targeted because of their
suspected links to human rights
abuses.
The West blames the veteran
leader's policies such as his haphazard and
often violent land reform that
has destroyed commercial agriculture, for the
collapse of the southern
African nation's economy.
But Mugabe, Zimbabwe's sole ruler since
independence from Britain in 1980
blames his country's problems on the
sanctions that he says are meant to
remove him from power for seizing
white-owned farms for landless blacks.
Mugabe's unity government with
Tsvangirai has succeeded in stabilising
Zimbabwe's economy but has made no
real progress in implementing political
reforms and ending human rights
abuses.
Incessant bickering between the former foes over how to equally
share
executive power, the appointment of senior government officials and
the
removal of Western sanctions threaten to cripple the government and
render
it ineffective in the long run. - ZimOnline
http://www.zimonline.co.za/
by Own Correspondent Thursday 18
February 2010
HARARE - Part of the US$2 million raised from toll
gates meant to assist in
road rehabilitation in Mashonaland and Matabeleland
provinces has been
diverted without authorisation to buy office equipment,
while some firms
contracted to maintain the roads have failed to do so,
members of parliament
(MPs) heard on Tuesday.
Transport and
Infrastructure Development chief executive Frank Chitukutuku
said currently
the Zimbabwe National Road Authority (ZINARA) is sitting on
$4 million
raised from the toll gates as a result of delays in the
collection of money
by local authorities and the department of roads.
"We gave them
(Department of Roads) about $2 million for general maintenance
and reports
we are getting from Matabeleland and Mashonaland West tell us
that the money
was used to buy computers and for vehicle repairs," he said.
"One
engineer who was contracted to do the widening of the toll gates
completed
the job. The others have not done so because they did not use the
funds for
the intended purpose," he said while giving evidence before the
parliamentary committee on transport.
He was however quick to point
out that the authority would not have problems
if the computers and vehicles
were used for work related to maintenance of
the roads.
Zimbabwe
introduced toll gates in August last year as a way of mobilising
resources
for the rehabilitation and maintenance of the country's road
network.
Small vehicle road users pay US$1 to cross the toll gates,
while buses and
lorries pay $5. Motorbike and cyclists do not pay
anything.
Chitukutuku said a number of applications from local
authorities were
currently under consideration, adding that shortage of
trained personnel was
the major reason local authorities and the Department
of Roads applied late
for funding.
"A major obstacle to
rehabilitation of roads is the incapacity of the
Department of Roads which
does not have both human resources and equipment,"
he said but pointed out
that the revenue which ZINARA was generating from
toll fees was inadequate
to embark on major road works as it costs up to
US$50 000 to reseal a
kilometre of road and up to $500 000 per kilometre to
build a new
one.
According to official government estimates, the toll gates are
raising $350
000 per week.
Since their introduction, ZINARA has
received $7 million from the Zimbabwe
Revenue Authority which collects the
fees of which $3.5 million has been
disbursed to the Roads Department under
the Transport Ministry for various
purposes including general maintenance of
roads, traffic counts, toll gate
widening and the dualisation of the
Harare-Gweru highway.
Chitukutuku was however not in a position to reveal
the exact amount that
had been misused, saying a full investigation had
since been instituted
although his organisation had no power to impose
penalties on institutions
that abused funds.
He said ZINARA only
stopped providing funding where abuse or
misappropriation had been
unearthed, adding that when the case amounted to
fraud it would be handed
over to the responsible authorities.
Chitukutuku said the authority had
resolved to remove major cities as
beneficiaries of the Road Fund since they
collected vehicle licence fees,
which should also go towards maintenance of
roads.
Most of the country's roads are in a state of disrepair with many
littered
with dangerous potholes as result of years of neglect and increased
volume
of traffic beyond designed carrying capacity.
Hundreds of
Zimbabweans including some senior government leaders have
perished in road
accidents that experts have largely blamed on the poor
state of
roads.
According to the ministry of transport, 30 percent of the
country's roads
require rehabilitation, while the remainder needs periodic
maintenance. -
ZimOnline
http://www1.voanews.com/
The CFU
recently expressed outrage when a Chipinge magistrate presided in a
case
involving a white commercial farmer whose farm he had been offered by
the
Ministry of Lands in what seemed a clear conflict of interest
Patience
Rusere | Washington 17 February 2010
The Commercial Farmers Union of
Zimbabwe has issued a report charging that
at least 16 judges have been
given property seized from white farmers under
land reform, compromising
their judicial objectivity in such cases.
The CFU, an advocate for the
interests of white commercial farmers of which
there remain only a few
hundred in the country from several thousand in 2000
when fast-track land
reform began, said Supreme Court and High Court judges
rule in land reform
cases though they have benefited from the process.
CFU President Deon
Theron said a "substantial" number of judges have been
given farms under the
controversial land reform program.
The CFU recently expressed outrage
when a Chipinge magistrate presided in a
case involving a white commercial
farmer whose farm he had been offered by
the Ministry of Lands in what
seemed a clear conflict of interest.
Political analyst Rejoice Ngwenya
told VOA Studio 7 reporter Patience Rusere
that it is common knowledge
judges have been beneficiaries of land reform,
illustrating the extent to
which the rule of law has been compromised.
http://www.zimtelegraph.com/?p=5963
By GETRUDE
GUMEDE
Published: February 18, 2010
The invasion of the Chiadzwa
blood diamond fields has resumed with reports
of an incessant influx of
fortune seekers once again gaining access through
hook and crook,
circumventing or bribing their way past law enforcement and
state security
agents into the rich veins, Zimbabwe Telegraph has heard.
According to a
soldier who spoke to this publication yesterday from the
once-life claiming
zone, Zimbos from all walks of life have started
regrouping in the vicinity
and zones close to the fields, laying siege close
to the land of
plenty.
"Things are quite tight here. Fortune seekers have started
regrouping here
with the intention of gaining access to Chiadzwa diamond
fields. Some are
managing, yes. We are letting them in as long as they part
with something
meaningful to appease the marshals here," said the soldier
who appeared
contended with the goings on there.
The Zimbabwe Mining
Development Corporation (ZMDC), which was described an
organized panner by
the hated Reserve Bank Governor Gideon Gono two years
ago was relieved of
its functions amid findings that their officials were
also involved in the
looting escapades there, prejudicing the government of
its much needed
revenue.
Recently, Dominic Mubayiwa, the ZMDC Chief Executive Officer was
summoned to
appear before a parliamentary portfolio committee on mines to
answer
fraudulent deals in diamonds, a case which also involved Mbada
Diamonds
Mining Company that had tried to auction the precious stones under
a veil of
corruption, circumventing government controls.
When a there
was a throng of fortune seekers to Chiadzwa at the height of
the economic
death knell, reports of trigger happy police officers, army
men, state
security personnel and high ranking officials looting diamond
were the order
of the day with one rich vein finally declared a cantonment
area reserved
for Vice President Joice Mujuru.
The Minister of Mines and Mining
Development Obert Mpofu was not reachable
for comment on the latest
development.
Mpofu's relations with his deputy Murwisi Zwizwai are
currently dirty as the
duo differ on matters of political
principles.
ZANU PF bigwigs who encompass the ageing president Robert
Mugabe and his
cronies, retired army commander Solomon Mujuru, and service
chiefs once had
a dig into Chiadzwa for self-enrichment purposes*
http://www1.voanews.com
Sources
said Prime Minister Tsvangirai left Zimbabwe early Wednesday and was
to
undergo surgery the same day in Johannesburg to repair damage to his nose
sustained during alleged police beatings in March 2007
Ngu Thomas
Chiripasi & Gibbs Dube | Washington NgolweSithathu, 17 Nhlolanja
2010
Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has been
admitted to a South
African hospital for surgery to repair damage to his
nose sustained in
beatings by police and security agents in March 2007,
sources said.
The sources said the prime minister left Zimbabwe early
Wednesday and was to
go into surgery the same day at an undisclosed hospital
in Johannesburg.
Tsvangirai was arrested in the wake of a Highfield rally
called by the Save
Zimbabwe Campaign on March 11, 2007. Photos of the
battered opposition
leader following his release a few days later stirred
international outrage.
Tsvangirai's spokesman James Maridadi said he
could neither confirm nor deny
that the surgery was related to the injuries
sustained by the MDC founder at
that time. He said Mr. Tsvangirai was
expected back at work next week.
http://www.zimdaily.com
By CHAKWANDA
MANGEPA
Published: Thursday 18 February 2010
HARARE -
Beneficiaries of the chaotic land reform programme have confessed
that their
participation in the land grab exercise was a result of greed to
merely
snatch the farm houses from the white community and not to till the
land,
the assertion that has thrown damper to the perceived enrichment
exercise of
the murderous ZANU PF party.
According to a ZBC Newsnet reporter who had
been pursuing reportage of the
chaotic exercise since its inception, most
resettled farmers who are now
standing helpless staring at bushes of grasses
have revealed their souls
saying that they were driven by spite to prejudice
the able white community
from their farms, the development that drew
Zimbabwe into poverty.
"Most farmers are confessing that what they needed
were farm houses and not
vast swathes of land, which implied slavery for
them.
That is the very reason why there is no productivity on the farms,"
said the
reporter.
When the land reform programme was introduced in
the 1980s, the intention
was address the perceived anomalies in the
distribution of land wherein most
blacks were allegedly occupying
unproductive land while the whites had rich
soils.
http://www1.voanews.com
The
Affirmative Action Group said starting next month it will go from
factory to
factory in urban areas to enforce controversial indigenization
regulations
which Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has denounced.
Gibbs Dube |
Washington 17 February 2010
Members of Zimbabwe's largest black
empowerment organization, the
Affirmative Action Group, say say they intend
to help the government enforce
recently published regulations for black
majority control of companies.
The group announced that beginning in
March it will move from one factory to
another in urban areas to enforce the
controversial regulations, which Prime
Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has
denounced as counterproductive to the
country's efforts to attract investors
to rebuild the economy.
The law requires companies to cede at least 51
percent of their shareholding
stake to black Zimbabweans.
Affirmative
Action founding member and former president Matson Hlalo was
critical of the
move, telling VOA Studio 7 reporter Gibbs Dube that it was
an attempt by
ZANU-PF-aligned empowerment advocates to seize white assets.
James
Maridadi, a spokesman for Mr. Tsvangirai, said the prime minister has
not
yet met with Youth Development, Indigenization and Empowerment Minister
Saviour Kasukuwere to discuss the new indigenization
regulations.
Kasukuwere published Regulations late last month spelling
out how the 2008
law for indigenization of enterprises is to be implemented.
Though companies
have five years to comply, they must disclose shareholdings
this year.
http://www.sowetan.co.za
18 February 2010
Chester
Makana
THE increasing theft of livestock is adversely affecting
communal farmers,
the Masisi Livestock Forum said yesterday.
The
forum says rustlers are smuggling the stolen animals to Zimbabwe and
Mozambique, .
President of the forum Sunday Mpofu was commenting
after smugglers stole 20
cattle at Masisi near Kruger National Park on
Monday.
Mpofu said the smugglers forcibly took the cattle from their
herders and
threatened to kill them if they did not comply.
He said
the animals had become an easy target for the smugglers who were now
stealing every week.
Mpofu said the problem was caused by informal
farmers who did not own farms.
The thefts, according to farmers, started
seven years ago when the Limpopo
River that borders Zimbabwe and South
Africa was dry, making it easier for
the smugglers to cross over with
cattle.
Mpofu said more than 100 cattle were stolen and herded across to
Mozambique
and Zimbabwe every year.
It had been a bad period for
communal farmers after they lost thousands of
livestock due to drought and
were now victims of rustlers, who were robbing
them of their
livelihood.
Mpofu said they wanted the government to assist them to
recover their
livestock.
Spokesperson for the department of safety
and security in Limpopo, Joe
Maila, said farmers should report the suspects
to the police.
|
|
BROADCAST: February 12
2010
VIOLET GONDA: Last week the government passed a new regulation
which requires businesses to hand over at least 51 percent ownership to
indigenous Zimbabweans. It is said the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment
regulation is meant to benefit ‘indigenous’ Zimbabweans who were disadvantaged
before independence in 1980 but there have been mixed reactions about this. Some
have said it may give marginalised groups a chance in the competitive job market
but others say the move sends a very wrong message to much needed potential
investors and could lead to chaos similar to the seizure of white commercial
farms in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai revealed the
move had been made without his knowledge, even though he is in charge of all
policy formulations by Cabinet. To discuss these latest developments my guests
on the programme Hot Seat are Supa Mandiwanzira the president of the Affirmative
Action Group, businessman Mutumwa Mawere, economist Daniel Ndlela and journalist
Peta Thornycroft. Let me start by getting your views on this new law, let’s
start with Supa.
SUPA MANDIWANZIRA: Well my views are that this is the most exciting
development that has taken place in Zimbabwe. In fact when the regulations were
gazetted last Friday you could just equate the excitement to that of 18 April
1980.
GONDA: Mutumwa Mawere?
MUTUMWA MAWERE I think if you are blind, anything is exciting but
if you recognise what time it is and what is required to advance the country’s
interest and what has made other countries progress and if you are looking at
social and economic change then you have to pause and reflect and actually try
to locate what is required to move forward.
GONDA: Daniel Ndlela?
DANIEL NDLELA: Well to me this law in fact, is not exciting at all
because at this stage Zimbabwe is the one that needs investors. The existing
investors and those investors that are still coming and given the fact that the
law is actually saying that Zimbabwe is not a favourable destination on Earth,
is not an attractive destination on Earth, it is not going to be exciting to the
majority of Zimbabweans. It might actually be exciting to a few who can actually
get their share of where they have not sown.
GONDA: Right, and Peta?
PETA THORNYCROFT: My first reaction was good, this is a jolly good
story, I’m going to make some money today and then I started phoning people and
I spoke to Dr Ndlela first and he gave me such a great quote. And then I phoned
around and I then was landed up being of the opinion that this is an appalling
set of regulations which are way in advance in their effect from regulations
that what was in the regulations should have been included in the Act in
Parliament.
GONDA: Let me go back to Supa who has said that he was so
excited when he heard about this but according to the general feeling on this
panel; it’s an appalling set of regulations which could drive away investors.
What can you say about this Supa?
MANDIWANZIRA: I think that with all due respect to the other
panellists, I think that there’s a complete misunderstanding of the intentions
and what the objectives of these regulations are. First and foremost, a law was
passed in the Parliament of Zimbabwe, in a parliament that was represented by
ZANU PF, the MDC and others, what has now taken place are moves or steps towards
implementation of that law – because if you put together a law, the next thing,
it must be implemented, so this is the whole process that was started a long
time ago that people shouldn’t be surprised about. But if people are also
honest, all investors have been sitting on the fence looking at Zimbabwe because
the argument has been ‘we’re not sure where Zimbabwe is going, we’re not sure
what the Indigenisation laws are, we’re not sure whether if we come in with our
money it’s not going to be expropriated and things like that’. What this does is
actually manna for the investors because it clarifies the situation, so any
investor sitting in South Africa, London, New York or Japan will now know what
is on the table and make a decision, corporate decision to say I’m not putting
my money there or I’m putting my money there because things have been put on the
table and they have been clarified.
GONDA: Mr Mawere, do you agree with this, that investors
have been sitting on the fence and this will actually help investors decide on
what they need to do on the issue of investing in
Zimbabwe?
MAWERE: Not necessarily, I think nation building is an
enterprise that has its own foundational principles. If you were to locate a
Zimbabwean and say this is a previously disadvantaged, you are after 30 years of
Independence, how do you proceed on that enterprise? Who would be included, who
would not be included? If I am white, I came in to Zimbabwe when the flag was
raised in 1980 and I invested, I made my money, how can you distinguish me with
somebody who was born in the country, maybe on the same day that I was born and
then you build a foundation on that basis.
Yes Zimbabwe has an
ugly past, but how best can it be resolved? Through shared transfer of schemes
and to what benefit? So if a bad law doesn’t become a good law because
instruments have been gazetted, a bad law has to stand on its own and a good law
can stand on its own. If Zimbabwe were to speak, would it speak in the voice of
Supa and who would be Supa representing? That is a question that he can answer
but to develop a country, it’s really an idea and Zimbabwe can advance its
course if it is welcoming other people. And those who do nothing, the minerals
are where God left them. I can’t say because I was born in Zimbabwe the minerals
belong to me merely because I was born. Then I’d be playing God
myself.
But the minerals are
there, somebody has to apply his or her mind, put capital to uplift the minerals
where they are and convey them to a marketplace. Minerals in the ground are
God’s creation and on what basis would then I come in and say because I’m in
this generation, my neighbour has found a way to extract the minerals and makes
money in it out of an exchange of a mineral metal into cash, but if the market
collapses, that person also can collapse. There’s no guarantee that what you
uplift you will be able to convey to market profitably. But if you do so, you
have to spend money in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe benefits in that enterprise so it
requires a much more careful consideration than just say oh this is an extension
of something that was approved by parliament or the Act exists. It is important
that we do reflect on Zimbabwe the person that requires the
investment.
GONDA: Let me go back to Supa and find out from him to
what extent this law discriminates against whites. Does it discriminate against
whites? Is this a racially targeted manoeuvre to completely clear out white
people from Zimbabwe? What are your thoughts on
this?
MANDIWANZIRA: I think that the interpretation of this Law and
the Regulations as an attempt by government to disempower the whites in Zimbabwe
is obviously being driven by people who have an agenda against Zimbabwe and its
readmission into the community of nations, so we can do business with others.
Because there’s nowhere in the law where it says that whites are not allowed to
own businesses, that this law is targeting whites. I would challenge everybody
on the panel to please highlight the section that talks about white Zimbabweans
being excluded.
I hear Mr Mawere’s
argument that we must look at the interests of Zimbabwe and we must welcome
anyone who wants to bring in their money into Zimbabwe. Indeed this law is
welcoming anyone who wants to bring in money into Zimbabwe but it is giving them
the expectation of the Zimbabwean people – that within five years of your
investment you must achieve a certain ownership that is indigenous, but if you
cannot do so in five years, tell us and we will give you more time but
ultimately we would like you to achieve this. The law is very clear, it does not
discriminate against white people.
The law is simply
saying we are aware the indigenous population was discriminated against prior to
Independence in 1980 and to give them a leap forward so they can catch up with
those that perpetrated this disadvantage, let’s give them also these advantages.
So I would like to hear from those on the panel who feel that this is
discriminatory to explain where they were before 1980 when the majority was
discriminated against.
MAWERE: But Supa, your definition of indigenous means
what?
MANDIWANZIRA: My definition of indigenous is the legal
definition of indigenous here in Zimbabwe which is anyone who was disadvantaged
before Independence in 1980. So whether you are Indian, you are white, you are
coloured, you are any other colour, as long as you were disadvantaged before
Independence in 1980 you qualify. You just have to prove that you . .
.
MAWERE: So if I set up my business in 1980, I should give
up my shares?
MANDIWANZIRA: Well I think . . .
MAWERE: Is that what you are
saying?
MANDIWANZIRA: There is no-one who is saying give up. People are
simply saying find an investor who is Zimbabwean who was disadvantaged before
Independence who will buy your shares at an agreed price, government is not
determining the price.
GONDA: Let me ask Peta Thornycroft for her thoughts on
this. To your understanding, does this law discriminate against white people
first of all?
THORNYCROFT: Well I think there are so few white people left in
Zimbabwe that it really makes little difference, any issue about race. Section
Nine of the regulation does exclude 14 sectors of the economy for previously
disadvantaged people and certainly black people were previously disadvantaged
before 1980 so I think that has an element in it that someone could go to the
Constitutional Court in Zimbabwe and challenge
that.
It’s not about white
people per se, it’s about reaping where you have not sown and therefore as you
have seen with the Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa, and I’ve been
away from South Africa for 10 years so I haven’t followed its ins and outs, but
what I know is that those investments that took place, people paid for them.
They didn’t get 51 percent, they negotiated the percentage and that they were
done with, some of it with great thought and care. What worries me with these
regulations is that they are in the hands of Saviour Kasukuwere, a ZANU PF MP, a
ZANU PF person, who might say ‘OK we’re actually going collecting for the
February 21st Movement at the moment and if we don’t get a donation from you I’m
afraid that’s your 51 percent’. And it’s no good saying people don’t behave like
that, we all know ahead of ZANU PF congresses over many years, businessmen have
been forced to invest in the ZANU PF congress for fear of their business,
they’ve done it to protect themselves. And I could give you a string of names if
I had permission in advance to demonstrate this. These regulations give far too
much power to the Minister, his discretion is absolutely
enormous.
GONDA: Would you not agree though with those who argue
that this law seeks to enable previously disadvantaged people to enter business
and not simply as workers but as owners?
THORNYCROFT: What worries me about anyone going into any business
is that will they know anything about that business when they go in, so if
you’ve suddenly got a guy who’s got 51 percent shareholding and he can appoint
directors, how do we know he’s going to appoint directors that are going to
contribute to the company’s wellbeing? So let’s go back to the land, because I
know a lot about that. What . . . (interrupted)
MANDIWANZIRA: Violet, Violet, we need to be fair to this law . .
.
GONDA: Hold on, hold on Supa. Sorry Peta, go
on.
THORNYCROFT: OK, let’s take the issue of land and try and take
the race out of it. What you had there was about 4 500 mostly not all, but
mostly extremely efficient and productive farmers who produced 40 percent of
foreign currency. Maybe they made it look too easy. When that land has been
taken over and handed to people who had no experience in commercial farming and
who didn’t have title deeds to raise money to grow their crops – and of course
Agritex by this stage has virtually collapsed – but what you have had is a
catastrophic collapse of the economy because land was handed to people who
didn’t know how to make the best of it and why would this not happen with the
companies? If you are going to have people who know nothing about heavy
engineering, there’s one heavy engineering company left in Zimbabwe, in
Bulawayo. If you go into that company, it’s an extraordinary place and why would
that company want to have somebody on their, with 51 percent owning who may
appoint a board of directors who know nothing about that company? We’re just
going to see those companies collapse as we saw the farms collapse, not all of
the farms but most of the farms.
GONDA: Before I get a reaction from Supa, let me go to
Daniel. First of all, as an economist, what will be the real impact of this and
how different are these guidelines from the land reform
programme?
NDLELA: Thank you very much. The point here is, let me go
back a little bit and say who in fact are these ‘indigenous Zimbabweans’ that
will benefit from this law? The letter of the law simply says that the people
who registered their names with the Minister and there will be an allocation
procedure. Definitely this is patronage, it is a continuation of patronage as we
have seen it in Zimbabwe and that those who will benefit are people in the gravy
train in the patronage system. This letter of the law is quite clear that if you
don’t comply, five years in prison, if you don’t do this, five years in prison.
The issue here from an economist’s point of view is if you want investments from
your own country, existing investments or/and new investments out there, you are
not going to threaten people that come here, invest but if you don’t comply you
are going into prison for five years. From an economist’s point of view, you’ll
not have any investors coming into this country.
The spirit of the law
itself, not the letter of the law, the spirit of the law itself has a morality
element that does not really auger well with all investments internationally
because you really don’t have a situation where there’s an allocation of your
shares via a Minister at this point in time. In other words, from an economic
point of view, the existing investors will lose interest in their businesses.
They will run down the businesses in the five years so that by the five years
actually you are taking on something that is no longer at its best, they are not
going to invest in the five years, during this period and the enterprises that
will be there will be enterprises that are really down. The new investors will
not be persuaded to bring in their technologies, bring in their money here. Supa
says that the people out there now will know the rules of the game, if they
don’t want, they are not going to come, and if they want they are going to come.
I want to ask Supa himself that if he has a million dollars will he go to a
country where he will actually end up in five years with a share value of $49
000. He would be very benevolent indeed . . .
MANDIWANZIRA: Let me take the opportunity to respond there . .
.
NDLELA: . . . because I’ll not do that, I’ll not actually
go to a country where they want my 100 dollars and then tell me at the end of
the day, you are going to remain with 49, the 51 will go to the locals, so I
will stay in my own place.
GONDA: Supa, can you respond?
MANDIWANZIRA: Well unfortunately it appears that both Daniel and
Peta are scaremongering. I am not sure to what extent they have gone through
both the Law and the Regulation because what they are basically saying does not
exist in the Law and does not exist in the Regulation. They are scaring people
unnecessarily and they must begin to be honest with themselves and honest with
your listeners that what they are saying is actually not
true.
You cannot draw
parallels of this Indigenisation Economic Empowerment Act and the Regulations to
the Land Reform Programme. The Land Reform Programme started with the Svosve
people occupying land outside any structured way by government. Here is
something that is being done legally, lawfully by starting to promulgate the law
in parliament, debating it, and then approving it and now implementation of the
Regulations. So there’s a difference with the Land Reform Bill so you cannot
draw parallels to that process.
The second important
thing, Peta makes this argument that if people are going to be allowed to buy 51
percent they will run down those companies and they will appoint the wrong
people and, listen, let’s be very clear, the Law simply says if you do not
qualify to be indigenous, please find yourself some partners, those partners do
not come and take your shares for free and there’s no stupid investor who will
buy 51 percent of a business and put the wrong people to run that business, you
will be silly to do that. Anyone who buys 51 percent must create and get value
out of that 51 percent and it is completely disrespectful of the indigenous
people if that is the suggestion these guys are putting on the table – that the
indigenous people will spend money to buy 51 percet of businesses that they will
run down. It’s nonsensical, there’s no sane business person who will do
that.
Do I take a million
dollars and put it in a country where I will eventually end up owning 51 percent
– yes if I’m going to get value for my investment and I’m going to put a price
to it, I will. There’s this misconception that 51 percent, owning more than 51
percent is the most profitable, is the most best thing, we all know that even
some of the richest people control 12 percent of the companies that have made
them rich, so we must not be hamstrung on this issue of percentage ownership. We
must look at the value of the businesses, the value of the assets that
Zimbabweans have, whether they’ve been exploited or not exploited, the value
that they have by just being Zimbabwean.
GONDA: Peta, can you respond? Are you
scaremongering?
THORNYCROFT: I don’t think I’m scaremongering. I’m personally not
a legislator or an expert on legislation or statutory instruments, I phoned
others and I’ve got the regulations, I had them, I read them, I phoned and I
asked questions of people like Daniel Ndlela who is an economist and who deals
in these fields, that’s his life’s work and he said, he told me the 49 and 100
dollars story; I spoke to John Robertson, I spoke to businessmen who had read
the Regulations and they said these are extremely anti-friendly towards
investment.
Zimbabwe is not a
prize place to invest in the first place. The infrastructure is so broken, why
would investors really want to come here in the first place, so we’ve got to
make it look really attractive to get investment in the first place, then we are
going to dictate to these investors, percentages. That’s the first point I
have.
The second point I
have is I can’t understand why anyone wants to tamper with companies that maybe
running successfully already, why not start a new one? Why not expand it rather
than messing up what, if any business has survived the last 10 years,
particularly say the last five years in this country, my goodness they should
get a business Oscar for having survived the chaos of hyperinflation and money
printing. If they’ve survived, leave them alone, we’ve got so few industries
left. Start new ones. Why don’t previously disadvantaged people of whatever
colour start a new business? Shouldn’t government be looking to assist new
business establishment rather than tampering with what is already there –
because it wouldn’t matter how you wrote the story about those Regulations, the
percentage is there and in 400 words when you write that story, that is what the
world reads and I’m afraid that is the impression that has been created and it’s
not going to go away.
ZANU PF has an
extremely poor record in the last few years of leaving businesses alone, leaving
people to decide their own future, deciding how they are going to survive. They
are an extremely interfering political party and this is headed up by one of
them who has this enormous discretion and as Daniel Ndlela said, you know you
start sticking in jail sentences, then come on, come on – there’s the
headline.
GONDA: Mutumwa, what are your thoughts on this and Peta
says perhaps it’s time that the government started providing an environment
where people actually start their own businesses, but those in favour of this
new Law say that it targets industries like the mining industry where these
mines already have claims and it’s difficult for locals, or indigenous people to
enter into these industries, so how do the locals buy or enter into these
competitive markets?
MAWERE: I think it’s always a complex issue what makes
enterprises succeed, what makes nations win. Some people believe that Zimbabwe
belongs to people who look like myself or Supa or Peta and I can build a
Zimbabwe that is like that. But imagine you are driving your car and you are
told that you need three passengers in the car and you are moving from Point A
to Point B. Whether you’ve three passengers or you don’t, you still get to Point
B; it doesn’t really make a difference in terms of driving and enterprise. There
are people who follow, who will work for the enterprise. Shareholding itself is
like being a parent. You spend school fees on your children but you can’t
invoice them. So really for somebody to say I own and know that I’m going to die
anyway is to accept that the proceeds of your effort may go to the next
generation, who may not necessarily be qualified or whatever, but they have to
inherit what you have. But if you build now and say the success of an enterprise
is based on parents, merely that the shares, the holder of the share can decide
whether the company succeeds or not.
DRC has minerals, 100
percent are indigenous but there’s no activity taking place in some of those
minerals. You can equally convert Zimbabwe into 100 percent title and nothing
takes place. What is good for Zimbabwe? Is it for people to sit to play God and
say I own 100 percent of Zimbabwe but I don’t have the means, or I own 100
percent of the car but I don’t have fuel? Their car may be worth US$100 000 but
if you don’t have one litre of fuel, the car won’t move. So we can end up with
cars that provide no motion to it. And equally somebody who has turned 30 years
now who was born in 1980 who is white, how are we going to face that person?
Born in Zimbabwe 1980, was not part of the previous story, now does it mean that
that business ought to carry three passengers or four passengers for it to pass
through a toll gate where Supa or the Minister is a Toll Gate
Inspector?
NDLELA: Can I come in there?
GONDA: Yes Daniel.
NDLELA: It’s really, if Zimbabwe, if the legislators in
Zimbabwe, if the policy makers in Zimbabwe were honest that theirs is promoting
indigenous Zimbabweans, they should really be honest about that – and for
instance in the mining sector, countries that have gained from the mining
sectors, countries that have made government itself go 50/50 percent with
foreigners and so that the rewards of the ventures come back to the poor people
of that particular country, not the business of actually lifting patronage
business people when in fact the sister is getting
nothing.
The Minister of
Finance recently in the budget explained that he only got US$4 million as tax
revenues from the mines and yet the mines, we know very well that they are doing
very well. These are foreigners, fine. The government itself must go in and then
open up those shares in as public listed entities instead of going for all these
small businesses and say that if you own a business worth 500 000 and above you
must actually share. We have to be honest, intellectual honesty and honest in
terms of our morality again because who are these indigenous business people?
I’m asking myself, I fought this liberation, I was out there and I don’t
understand when I came back 1980 that today we are still talking about that past
and at the same time we have destroyed our wealth and we are continuing to
destroy the wealth for the future poverty stricken people of this country. They
need jobs, they need to be empowered, not to be empowering the few people and
making laws for the few people and that is what is happening here. The spirit of
this Law does not really auger well with investment worldwide. We like it or
not, the results will show. Investment is going to be very difficult from
outside under this law.
GONDA: Those in favour of this also say that the
Regulation is trying to redress a problem where foreign investors just come into
a country like Zimbabwe, take what they want and then go, where they pay very
little taxes and also repatriate most of the profits. Do you agree with
this?
NDLELA: There is an element of that, particularly in the
mining industry. Again, why is it so? It’s because of the opaque nature of those
deals with government officials. All these exemptions which are given to the
mining sector are done by the very indigenous Zimbabweans in government and so
the opaque element, the non-transparency element is one that is actually playing
up here – not because a non-Zimbabwean can just come in and invest and you take
51 percent. In the mining sector, of course we don’t know what is happening out
there because of the opaque nature of all the deals and the mining agreements
that have been done after 1980 not before 1980.
GONDA: Mutumwa, what are your thoughts on this? Is there
corporate social responsibility by foreign
investors?
MAWERE: It’s not enough, there’s a lot that can be done in
terms of balancing the interests of the nation and the corporate citizen or the
persons in corporate citizens, and it’s a continuous negotiation. If you
increase tax, you discourage people; if you reduce too low then the State itself
won’t have the capacity to function. But what you have is that if the
unemployment is high in Zimbabwe and the people who are able and willing to
offer themselves in the labour market are going elsewhere, are not in Zimbabwe
and empowering themselves personally, and they see more value by being able to
contract outside the State of Zimbabwe. Then if you go to Pick & Pay, more
people pick and pay and Pick & Pay makes for instance makes a profit. What
they do with the profit, if it’s derived from a free exchange of goods and
services where the people are buying, some are exchanging money for something
else, surely the discretion must be left to the person who extracts that profit
in a free market but where there is no free market then one can say something
else.
Equally Supa’s
businesses, if you said Supa I want to join your car as a businessman and I just
want 51 percent just because I am black or I am disabled or I’m blind, I’m sure
Supa would actually tell me to go and see a psychiatrist. He’ll not be himself,
if he were to show by example how he can give up his own privilege so that other
people, because if he acquires that privilege through a market system, the
question of corporate social responsibility yes, it’s important. Most of the
people who have made money, they end up giving away because there’s no coffin
that takes cash, there’s no graveyard that has an ATM machine so you know you’re
going to die anyway, and your stomach can’t take anymore in a 24-hour day. So
why would a rich person threaten a poor person because really they have no
capacity to do so because they can only consume as human
beings.
So if you don’t
understand that side of nation building or corporate citizens then, if I have
extra money, I apply my discretion. But then once you institutionalise this and
make it a legal instrument which then forces people to say I’m driving at 70
kilometres per hour then I’m speeding and you know that people drive at 120
kilometres, then you’ve got a problem.
So I’m not too sure
for whose benefit, when you know what Zimbabwe really requires today – it
requires jobs and the people who have the skills are leaving the country and
some of them who are there working very hard but clearly they can’t support a
State that itself is not serving the growing population of employed people or
people who are providing the income. Because the concept behind a government
really is nothing more than somebody who has the right to tax you for your
income, but somebody must generate the income.
But imagine for 2010
FIFA, Supa and myself, we sit as a committee to allocate seats for the match. It
will take maybe a 100 years before we actually know who sits where but if you
have a market system, this has been proved over and over, people know that if
they can’t afford the game they find alternatives not because. But right now,
how are you going to discriminate among maybe 12, 13 million who should get what
and who should not.
And this decision is
now invested in the minds of people like Supa who then have the prerogative to
decide what is good for the country because right now as he is speaking on
behalf of the country you’re talking about three million maybe people in South
Africa – is he representing them or is he representing what he thinks Zimbabwe
should be, because people daily are voting with their feet and they know what is
good for them.
If what is good for
them is shares, then let them create their own New Mutual instead of an Old
Mutual, they create their own Standard Bank, there’s nothing standard about
Standard Bank. We have created banks in Zimbabwe, those banks have people
believe in, in the bank, you don’t have to go and take shares in Standard Bank.
Why should I worry about what Standard Bank is doing when the people who make
the bank are the customers and the customers are Zimbabwean – and you say look
we are indigenous on the consumption side then we can’t decide where we want to
buy, then we buy insurance from the wrong party, then we want to be insured by
another party that we’re not buying insurance from.
So we have decisions
to make and if time was spent on actually educating ourselves, understanding
what it takes to build a winning country then we would make a better prospect
than talk about someone’s corporate social responsibility, not our own
responsibility.
GONDA: Next week’s discussion gets very heated when the panellists focus on the dipping of foreign accounts by the Reserve Bank, elitism in economic empowerment and who is responsible for the exploitation of Zimbabwean assets among other issues. – ZimOnline
FROM THE
PRESS NOTICE
Mugabe Birthday Demonstration
Fungayi
playing a wide-awake Mugabe Mugabe opens conference this week
Exiled Zimbabweans in the
The demonstration is organised by the
Zimbabwean human rights activist Fungayi Mabhunu, wearing a Mugabe
mask, will be in attendance to receive presents, including a relaxation,
announced this week, of the targeted sanctions by the European Union. He will be
accompanied by Josephine Zhuga playing the role of Mugabe’s wife
Grace.
Vigil Co-ordinator Dumi Tutani said “People at home might take for
granted the visionary leader who has done so much for so long to create a new
Event: Mugabe’s birthday celebrations.
Venue: outside the
Date:
Programme:
Contact: Rose Benton (07970 996 003, 07932 193 467), Fungayi Mabhunu (07743
662 046), Dumi Tutani (07535 632 717)
Vigil
Co-ordinators
The
Vigil, outside the Zimbabwe Embassy, 429
Hi Barbara
Hope you were as amused as I was at newzimbabwe's picture of a
hightech
South African tollgate purporting to be Zimbabwean. Zimbabwean
tollgates
are made up of a couple of people standing in the middle of a
road, one with
a handfull of tickets, the other with a bagfull of dollars,
surrounded by
yellow beacons and armed police.
N