The public statement showed: (i) Funds "disbursed" and not yet refunded under unknown conditions: US$1,158,192,368.85
(ii) Forex "availed" to parastatals under unknown conditions: US$2,064,200,000
(iii) Private sector forex "beneficiaries" under unknown conditions: US$13,700,000
(iv) 50 second hand motor vehicles "loaned" to MPs: no value given (When were they procured and purpose?)
(v) Agricultural mechanisation equipment distributed: no value given
(vi) 292 motor vehicles distributed to various institutions in 2006: no value given
(vii) 1 058 motor vehicles distributed to various institutions in 2007-2008: no value given
(viii) Motor vehicles PROCURED to various institutions in 2006-2008: no figures and value given
(ix) Computers and office equipment allocated: no value given (When were they procured?)
Some questions to the RBZ
Having read the public statement, one wishes to probe deeply the following:
1.
If the RBZ had so much money all these years, why did it not make it
available to the Ministry of Finance for accountable allocation, with
adequate checks and balances?
2. The RBZ has not been capitalised to
the tune of US$3,236,092,368.85 (US$3,2 billion), which is the amount
shown in the public statement. How did it finance all these operations?
3.
How much was received in total and where did it come from? How much of
this was from its own internal revenues, exports, expropriations of
FCAs and loans? If part of it is borrowed, did External Loans
Coordinating Committee (ELCC) preside over these?
4. The role of
distribution of public resources to both the public and private sectors
is not that of the RBZ. Why is he trying to create a role for himself
outside his mandate?
5. In an earlier statement to parliamentarians,
he used the term "Point Institution." a. Under what legal provisions or
public policy is this defined and mandate given? b. Which other public
institution can be a "Point Institution"? c. What public
accountability; and checks and balances are there for this so called
"Point Institution"?
6. Why is the RBZ subverting the role of
Ministry of Finance and CMED? This is a fiscal responsibility, right?
Why is he so keen to perform duties that are not his?
7. If the RBZ had the ingenuity to raise so much money, where is its ability to do so when it is failing to pay its employees?
8. What is the total amount that the RBZ owes to suppliers and whose accounts it expropriated?
Nowhere
has Gono said anything about the state of the government in general or
the Ministry of Finance in particular to raise funds through taxes and
other means during the period of his tenure as the Governor.
Finance Minister should not be swayed
The
Minister of Finance should not be swayed or intimidated by Gono’s
antics of raising emotions of those who benefited from his "Father
Christmas" behaviour.
All what the Minister of Finance should
insist and presumably insisted is that Gono should collect all that the
RBZ is owed so that he can pay the RBZ suppliers of goods and services;
and repay the forex to the owners of the FCAs whose accounts he raided.
Because
he is not able to raise the money required to settle RBZ creditors, he
is childishly misleading the nation that the Minister of Finance is
requesting beneficiaries of all his programmes to surrender back what
they received.
Anything short of that of the repayments, RBZ
creditors and owners of the forex he expropriated should individually
or collectively seek legal recourse.
These MPs will then realise
that it is not the Minister of Finance’s worry at all, neither has he
set himself against them. Biti should just fold his arms and keep his
mouth shut.
The RBZ creditors do not need the Finance Minister’s assistance to claim what belongs to them.
Gono
expropriated forex, lent money and gave away motor vehicles outside
legal provisions and public policy. He should be the one to be burdened
by recalling them and collecting whatever is owed to the RBZ. He should
either do so himself or engage a debt collecting agency.
Gono's self-anointed spokespeople
That
is not the problem or worry of the Ministry of Finance. Be reminded
that there are a number of Zanu (PF) MPs who benefited from Gono's
"bags" and election campaign funding and have taken it upon themselves
to be his spokespeople and public defenders.
Amongst the Zanu (PF) MPs defending Gono are the two most visible ones, Makhosini Hlongwane and Edward Raradza.
Hlongwane
the MP for Mberengwa East is a former reporter with ZBC, who has been
working for a company allegedly owned by Emmerson Mnangagwa and last
year he allegedly received a lot of money from Gono to mobilise the
youth.
He was sponsored to beat Rugare Gumbo in the Zanu (PF)
primary elections under a project by Gono to change the Zanu (PF) power
base in his favour through the young ones and those aligned to him
through quasi-fiscal oriented patronage.
Raradza, the MP for
Muzarabani South and Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU) vice president, and
his companies called "Farmers World Holdings" and "Zimbabwe Farmer
Development Company" were heavily involved in the procurement of the
agricultural mechanisation equipment.
In June 2008 he was
reported as the chairperson and major stakeholder of an obscure
"Zambesi Gas Zimbabwe Consortium" formed to exploit the Entuba
coalfield, near Hwange, in the north-west of Zimbabwe, after the
failure of its initial project to set up a gas plant in the same area.
Raradza
was also the architect of a reign of terror and orgy of violence linked
to Zanu (PF) that swept through Muzarabani (more than 400 kilometres
outside Harare near the Mozambican border) before the run-up to the
June 2008 election.
The dubious meetings by the so-called "Parliamentarian Welfare Committee" should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.
We
will not be swayed by the massive misinformation trough the Herald and
ZTV news. The more the noise Gono and his defenders are making in the
name of propaganda, the more those whom he owes are irritated.
Gono should not divert attention to the Finance Minister when it is his problem to deal with.
Fact 1. The RBZ owes some companies, people and organisations in forex.
Fact 2. The RBZ has limited time to settle the liabilities.
Fact 3. Gono should be working on ways and means of raising funds to repay the money he owes.
Fact 4. The RBZ has debtors.
Fact 5. The RBZ should be working on ways and means of receiving money from its debtors.
Fact 6. The RBZ faces serious litigation over its creditors and other liabilities.
Fact 7. Gono has no means of stopping the legal tsunami brewing for what the RBZ owes.
BY LEVI MHAKA
Post published in: Agriculture