There are moments when silence becomes complicity.
Ordinarily, the affairs of private companies are just that. They are private. Boards make decisions, shareholders absorb consequences and markets deliver their verdict. But this case is different. This is not merely about a struggling retailer, but about OK Zimbabwe Limited, the 73-year-old empire woven into the daily lives of Zimbabweans, from breakfast tables to family dinners. It is about an empire whose ownership structure places it squarely in the public interest.
With significant stakes held by the National Social Security Authority through its Workers Compensation Fund and National Pension Scheme — alongside Old Mutual, Datvest Nominees, QuantAfrica Wealth Management, and thousands of minority investors on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange — this is not a private playground. It is a repository of pensions, savings and national trust. That demands scrutiny and accountability.
The revelations we exposed last week were troubling and staggering.
A duplication error in the procurement of vehicles for the 2024 OK Grand Challenge resulted in the purchase of 62 cars instead of 31, costing the business US$560 000 in unnecessary expenditure. This was not a minor slip. It was a catastrophic governance failure at a time when the business was already gasping for survival.
Such an error does not occur in isolation. We cannot bury our heads and dismiss this as a clerical mistake.
It is a breakdown — systemic, cultural and managerial.
For a company with decades of experience running the same promotion, the explanation of “administrative breakdown” is not sufficient. It is an indictment.
- Rampaging inflation hits Old Mutual . . . giant slips to $9 billion loss after tax
- Inaugural Zim investor indaba highlights
- Stop clinging to decaying state firms
- ZB explores options to tackle inflation
Keep Reading
But my fear is that the vehicles saga may only scratch the surface. Information emerging after our publication suggests the need for a deeper forensic trail. The administrator would do well to revisit the paper trail — because the full story behind those vehicles, including their final allocation and control, may not yet have been fully uncovered.
Working capital was diverted into failed investments — millions poured into ventures that yielded no returns. Strategic decisions were taken collectively, sanctioned at the highest levels, yet executed without discipline or foresight. This is how procurement systems faltered and inventory losses surged, as supplier relationships collapsed. As we reported last week, revenues plummeted. This was not a misfortune, but mismanagement at a shocking scale.
The consequence was that a once-dominant retailer was brought to its knees, pushed into administration, its credibility shattered.
Corporate rescue practitioner Bulisa Mbano has struck a measured tone, suggesting that not all failures are necessarily criminal. That may be so. Business is inherently risky and not every bad decision is a crime.
But there is a threshold.
When decisions of this magnitude, involving millions of dollars, repeated strategic missteps and glaring control failures converge to nearly destroy a national treasure, the question of accountability can no longer be deferred to internal boardroom deliberations.
It must be confronted decisively.
An investigation under Section 134 of the Insolvency Act is a necessary first step. But it must not become a procedural exercise designed to dilute responsibility. Zimbabwe has seen too many cases where inquiries produce reports, and reports produce silence.
This cannot be one of them.
If there was negligence, it must be exposed; if there was recklessness, it must be punished. If there was criminality, it must be prosecuted.
Anything less will send a dangerous signal that those entrusted with safeguarding public-linked institutions and the savings of ordinary Zimbabweans, can preside over their collapse without consequence.
The administrator now carries a burden that goes beyond corporate rescue. It is a test of governance in Zimbabwe’s corporate sector. It is a test of whether accountability still has meaning in institutions that hold public wealth.
To restore OK, capital will be required, suppliers will need reassurance and systems will need rebuilding. But above all, trust must be restored, not just with the market, but with shareholders whose faith has been shaken.
