It would appear that in the animal kingdom, indigenisation is irrelevant and yet life is.
Mutumwa on Tuesday with Mutumwa Mawere
Animals are also born in particular locations, but the law of the jungle prevails, as there is no government to protect not the strongest in the chain, but the weakest.
Animals and human beings do not have a better claim on God’s given resources to claim them as theirs and to premise the promise of a better life solely on indigenisation programmes that only seek to alter share registers of already existing enterprises and projects.
The only country in Africa to qualify to be a member of BRICS is South Africa and the size of its economy betrays its inclusion in the club.
South Africa, with a population of 51 million, is the largest economy in Africa, but the fact that there are many economies with smaller populations and fewer natural resources, but more economically prosperous exposes the challenges that confront humanity in delivering the promise of a just, equal, inclusive, prosperous and sustainable life.
Human civilisation has provided useful pointers that it is great to have abundant and rich natural resources, but this is not sufficient to lift people out of poverty.
We are privileged that in our lifetime, we have seen the demise of the Soviet Socialist Republic while at the same time witnessing the transformation of a number of countries from one stage of development to a higher one.
- 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
In criticising indigenisation programmes one has to exercise caution because it is only natural that human beings, when given an opportunity, will always want to claim credit for any progress that takes place under their watch.
However, any enlightened person will know that in truth and fact, governments do not exist, but individuals do and progress will only be possible if conditions that allow individuals to express themselves freely and pursue their dreams and aspirations exist.
The role of any responsible State actor, therefore, ought to be prescribed at the very least.
Zimbabweans will soon go to the polls and inevitably the choice that politicians want them to make after 33 years of independence is centred on the question of the need of the indigenisation programme as the key to prosperity.
The controversy surrounding a number of transactions that have been completed in the name of indigenisation speaks volumes about the real challenge that faces Zimbabwe.
The attempt to reduce the debate to a dispute between those who want to believe that the indigenisation programme as framed and implemented provides the only route to prosperity and those that have a different worldview is not just motivated by politics, but by ignorance on what matters in terms of poverty alleviation and job creation.
The use of Dr Gideon Gono’s name in the debate is deliberate because of his known strong links with President Mugabe and any rational person would seek to neutralise and even discredit views that may carry favour with the powerful forces in the matrix.
The Nieebgate saga has exposed the deep divisions not just between the MDC and Zanu PF. but also within Zanu PF itself.
The unfolding drama that has seen search and seizure warrants being obtained on March 11 2013 by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) from the High Court after a magistrate had declined to issue the same warrants on the same facts and circumstances.
Ordinarily, in any functioning democratic constitutional order one would have expected NIEEB and the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) to seek to appeal against the High Court order or alternatively apply to have it rescinded yet in this unusual case, in less that 24 hours later on March 12, sought and secured through an urgent chamber application an interdict through the same High Court whose effect was to overturn another High Court order.
The fact that the interdict was granted by the Judge President or the boss of Justice Charles Hungwe must be a cause of concern even to President Robert Mugabe who took an oath to uphold the constitution and in this particular case it would appear that decision to approach the High Court with the same facts that had led to the granting of the warrant was not only irregular, but undermines the provisions of the constitution.
It is highly unusual for any Judge President to pull rank on matters of the law for if Judge President George Chiweshe was of the personal view that Justice Hungwe had erred in granting the warrant, he would in any functioning system know better how to resolve the problem.
Although Judge President Chiweshe may be the boss of Justice Hungwe, he simply has no power to overturn another order in the same court. This is obviously a precedent that goes a long way towards undermining the principles that President Mugabe has fought so hard to promote and protect.
Even Professor Jonathan Moyo would agree that Zimbabwe is a nation of laws and the rule of law principle ought to inform choices and actions.
Professor Moyo has made out a case that it is politically suicidal to Zanu PF for the State and its actors to engage let alone entertain any open and frank discourse on the shortcomings of the indigenisation programme at this defining moment in Zimbabwe’s history where winning elections means everything.
What is significant is that attempts have been made in the media to demonise not only ZACC, but also Justice Hungwe who is now described as a “night judge” for allegedly attending to court matters after working hours.
There is no doubt that in what is emerging as a polarised Zimbabwe, if Justice Hungwe had denied to grant the application by ZACC to issue the search and seizure warrants, the issue of dealing with matters of justice at 2am as alleged would not be so important.
The speed with which the Judge President disposed of the warrants obviously raises no issues with Professor Moyo.
The fact that after 33 years of post-colonial experience, the judiciary seems to be confused must also be a cause of concern not just to President Mugabe, but the public at large. President Mugabe has yet to add his voice to these disturbing developments.
After all, it is his name that is being put in disrepute. The public needs answers about many issues that are inherent in the manner in which the indigenisation programme is and has been implemented.
Attempts to limit the space of discourse do not assist the revolution rather it creates an impression that the state and its organs have been hijacked.
It is, therefore, sad to note that it would appear that even the state media is now part of the story pushing one version instead of allowing views to be openly ventilated in the national interest.
There is no doubt that Saviour Kasukuwere and his colleagues have benefited from the conversation on the indigenisation programme that has seen even President Mugabe electing to register his reservations about the vendor-financing model.
President Mugabe’s views on how the indigenisation transactions ought to be structured and financed are now well known, but it would appear that his views are irrelevant, as one would have expected Kasukuwere to immediately seek to align the concluded deals with President Mugabe’s framework. President Mugabe in the quietness of his time would agree that not all is well.
What is surprising is that the leadership one would naturally expect appears to be missing in action.
Mutumwa Mawere is a businessman based in South Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
