Indigenisation bias: grave concerns

It is clear that foreign owned companies are not being treated equally. Part 11 (3)(a) of the Act provides that 51% of shares in every public company and any other business shall be owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.

The statute defines “indigenous Zimbabweans” as individuals, companies and corporate partnerships that, before independence in 1980, were disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of race, descent, and other prejudices.

Indigenisation itself is defined as a “deliberate involvement of indigenous Zimbabweans in the economic activities of the country, to which hitherto they had no access, so as to ensure the equitable ownership of the nation’s resources.”

Several companies with European links have recently been frog-marched to sign the indigenisation agreement – obviously believing it futile to resist the pressure. But many big companies above the minimum threshold of $500,000 as specified by the law have been spared.

These include the Chinese-backed Anjin diamond mining company and Indian-owned Essar Holdings.

Why are they being spared? If we go back to the definitions given above, it is as clear as a cloudless sky that the owners of Anjin and Essar are not indigenous people nor are their companies indigenous concerns.

Excluding them from indigenisation thus violates the provision on indigenisation, as defined above. Surely Minister Saviour Kasukuwere, who is in charge of the indigenisation ministry, should be prosecuted for this flagrant violation of the law?

In fact, the whole process of indigenisation runs into the danger of being criminal if the act is not enforced in a proper manner.