ZIMBABWE has not been able to leverage its sub-surface mineral wealth into financing broad-based development. One of the critical factors why the country has failed to parlay its mineral resources into economic growth and development is the pervasive opacity in the extractive industries. There is limited public knowledge on the granting of claims, contract negotiation production level data, marketing of minerals, revenue generation and revenue use. The cloak of secrecy in the mining sector effectively sidelines the vast majority of the population from participating in the governance and decision making processes related to the sector.
Report by Gilbert Makore/Allan Chaumba
Worryingly, mining-related deals are consummated away from the public eye, only for details to emerge that the country may have been prejudiced. Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara has conceded that negotiators of Zimbabwe’s mining deals come to the table deaf, dumb and blind. There is evidence to support his claim.
There have been allegations that the Zisco-Essar deal was negotiated without the participation of key ministries and ended up being skewed in favour of the private company. To date, despite the various government heads trading barbs through the media, there has been no publication of the said deal or at the very least, its outcomes. There is still no clarity as to whether or not the deal has been given consent by the two parties involved.
Currently, the country is seized with emerging details regarding the Zimplats indigenisation deal. The deal is part of Zimplats’ compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The Act compels companies to cede 51% of their shares to indigenous Zimbabweans. As far back as October 2011 it was reported that Zimplats had given 10% of its shareholding to the local community as a step towards compliance with the law. The act of disposing 10% to the local community presupposed general agreement on a deal. However, in May 2012 the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment and the Zimplats chairperson appeared at a joint Press conference at which it was said that the company had submitted a plan that complied with the law. It then becomes mind boggling that prior to the conclusion of the deal, Zimplats had proceeded to dispose 10% shareholding to the local community only to publicly reappear and say the deal had not been finalised.
There was much celebration by government and community representatives when the community trust was established. The government was lauded as pioneering a ground-breaking model for community development. Yet the finer details of the deal were not made public. The documents establishing the agreement remained hidden from the general public. There was no transparent process around the finalisation of the deal. The communities were not consulted, but were told that the deal meant for them.
As far back 2011, Zimbabwe Environmental Law Association had sounded a warning that the absence of transparency and accountability in the implementation of the indigenisation programme would be a harbinger for deals that prejudice the nation and ensuing public discontent around the program. In late 2012, the organisation commissioned a research into the establishment of community share ownership Trusts in Zimbabwe’s mining sector. The research clearly enunciated the challenges related to the implementation of the program particularly insofar as it lacked public participation, transparency and accountability. The research results postulated the Community Development Agreement model as a better model for indigenisation given its participatory and tripartite nature of inclusivity with the key stakeholders from government, mining companies and communities.
There are now allegations that the Zimplats deal undervalued the platinum resource that the company sits on. Media reports also allege that the deal is problematic in terms of funding for the acquisition of the shares by the government, the community and the employees. Indications are that there is a likelihood that communities and other empowerment entities may fail to pay for the shares disposed potentially resulting in the forfeiture of the same.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Even after all this, what remains missing from the public domain are the documents detailing the deals that are ostensibly meant to benefit us as Zimbabweans. The government stance seems to be “do not worry about media reports, trust that we negotiated deals to the full benefit of the nation”. Yet in the face of the media reports being published, this surely cannot suffice.
The current legal and policy framework governing mining does not provide sufficient scope for transparency and accountability. However, the dictates of good governance certainly provide a basis for their classification as public documents that ought to be availed to the general populace for public consumption. It is hoped that the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill will contain key provisions on transparency and accountability.
