‘Hands off BIPPA farms’
Tuesday, 01 January 2013 00:00
Zvamaida Murwira Senior Reporter
GOVERNMENT has stopped the acquisition of farms covered under Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement as the State strives to manage its liability. The State has also revoked offer letters for 55 A1 farmers allocated pieces of land at Tavydale Farm in Mazowe district.
This is part of Government’s efforts to observe agreement entered into under BIPPA.
Lands, Land Reforms and Resettlement Minister Hebert Murerwa yesterday said while the law conferred Government with powers to acquire any land, it had decided to put on hold acquiring of farms under BIPPA.
Agreements under BIPPA require that Government pay fair compensation in currency of the former owner’s choice for both land and improvements.
Minister Murerwa said the decision to stop acquiring BIPPA farms was in respect of the agreement while managing State liability.
He said Government was saddled with a US$25 million debt owed to 40 Dutch farmers.
The farmers successfully sued at the International Court for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
“Although under Zimbabwean law, Government can legally acquire such farms, in view of the ongoing litigation in the ISCID, Government has taken the decision not to settle persons on farms covered by BIPPA for now,” said Minister Murerwa.
“Government will abide by the provision of the agreement and at the same time we do not want to increase our liability.”
Some of the countries covered by BIPPA include Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Malaysia and Switzerland.
Meanwhile, Minister Murerwa said Government would have to find alternative land for the affected A1 farmers.
“At Tavydale farm, a decision has been made by myself and the Mashonaland Central Governor and Resident Minister Martin Dinha that we will not settle farmers on the property,” he said.
Minister Murerwa said the offer letters issued by Mazowe district administrator Ms Shelter Nyakudya were done in error.
Related
* 70ha maize destroyed in land dispute
“That was not authorised. The DA should have checked with the Governor’s office. She has no authority to issue offer letters for farms covered under BIPPA,” Minister Murerwa said.
The revocation has, however, riled the affected farmers.
The farmers said Government, instead of ensuring that the white commercial farmer, Mr Peep Mattison, compensated them for destroying their crops, was actually revoking their licences.
They said it was not their fault that they were erroneously issued with offer letters.
“We secured loans from commercial banks on the strength of those offer letters. How are we expected to service the loans,” said one farmer, Mr Felix Mshambodza.
He said it was strange that Governor Dinha, DA, and other political leaders in the province had actually led them on the farm but had made an about-turn on the same.
Governor Dinha said he stood by the letter indicating that the farm was covered by a BIPPA.
“I have delegated powers, my letter was very clear that, our principal has taken a position that the farm should not be acquired for resettlement. Ask the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement,” said Governor Dinha.
Mr Mattison lost a High Court bid to evict the farmers after it ruled that his case was not urgent.
In his judgment, Justice Francis Bere castigated Government officials for failing to speak with one voice.
The judge said there was a need for Government departments not to issue conflicting signals.
He said the A1 farmers had been at the property for more than one year, but Mr Mattison sought to have them evicted on a certificate of urgency.
Labels: BIPPA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
Government halts seizures of land under treaties
31/12/2012 00:00:00
by Staff Reporter
IN a major policy shift on the land question, government announced on Tuesday it was halting seizures of all white-owned farms covered under bilateral treaties.
The state was forced to review its course after being hit with a 25 million euros bill by a group of 40 Dutch farmers who successfully sued for damages after they were driven off their properties by the Zanu PF government.
With zero-recourse in Zimbabwe, the farmers took their grievances to the International Court for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which ruled in 2009 that government should compensate them for their losses, plus interest.
While President Robert Mugabe has previously vowed no payment for any properties, Land Reform Minister Hebert Murerwa appeared to suggest a complete change of approach on Tuesday.
“Although under Zimbabwean law government can legally acquire such farms, in view of the ongoing litigation in the ISCID, we have taken the decision not to settle persons on farms covered by BIPPA for now,” Murerwa told the Herald newspaper.
“Government will abide by the provision of the agreement and at the same time we do not want to increase our liabilities.”
Murerwa added that offer letters already issued to black settlers to occupy such properties were being revoked.
The policy change follows deliberations by Zanu PF at its December conference on a report compiled by the party admitting that the land seizures were illegal and that the state had the obligation to pay the aggrieved farmers.
The document revealed that out of 153 farms covered by bilateral agreements, 116 of them have been expropriated under Mugabe’s chaotic and often violent land reforms that displaced more than 4,000 whites and left thousands of black farm workers without a paycheck.
While the party acknowledged the country had an obligation to compensate the farmers in line with Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements and international law, it concluded that government was too broke to make any payouts.
“The Dutch farmers who took the country to the International Court for Settlement of Investment Disputes and won have not been paid,” the Zanu PF report said.
“In addition, a German family, the Von Pezolds, has also taken us to the ISCID for their farm which we acquired and partly resettled. We are framing our defence with the Attorney General’s Office. The Von Pezolds claim is in the region of US$600 million.”
The SADC Tribunal also ruled four years ago that Zimbabwe’s land reforms were “racist” and ordered compensation for dozens of farmers.
But government protested the ruling and caused a regional political storm that led to the disbanding of the tribunal.
Farmers who have lost their properties covered by bilateral treaties include citizens of South Africa, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland and others countries.
Labels: BIPPA, LAND REFORM
Read more...
Parliament approves Zim-Botswana BIPPA
Wednesday, 12 October 2011 00:00
Lloyd Gumbo Herald Reporter
THE release of the US$70 million credit facility promised by Botswana is imminent after the House of Assembly approved the ratification of an agreement between the two countries yesterday. The House approved the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement which seeks to promote and protect investment between the two countries.
Other BIPPAs approved are with India and Iran. Botswana which has already ratified the agreement is waiting for Zimbabwe to do the same before it releases the money. Steering the motions, Economic Planning and Investment Promotion Deputy Minister Samuel Undenge said ratification of the BIPPAs would open trade opportunities and protection with the said countries.
"In the agreement signed on March 21, 2011, the Botswana Government promised to provide US$70 million credit line to promote investment," Deputy Minister Undenge said.
"The Botswana Government has already ratified and once we ratify this agreement will unlock a lot of benefits for us especially Bulawayo which is closer to Botswana will benefit."
Botswana is one of the Sadc countries that had undertaken to help Zimbabwe get its economy back on track after the formation of the inclusive Government in February 2009.
The credit facility is yet to materialise because the Government of Zimbabwe is yet to ratify the agreement to protect their investment.
Botswana's Minister of Trade and Industry Ms Dorcas Makgato-Molesu at the signing of the BIPPA in March said the lines of credit would be opened once the modalities of conditions to access the funds were concluded.
On the India BIPPA Deputy Minister Mudenge said trade with India had been very low and the aim of this agreement was to ensure trade and investment between the two countries was increased.
The BIPPA with India was signed in February 1999 while the one with Iran was signed in May of the same year.
He said the country has received about US$37 million in direct foreign investment from India between 2008 and 2009 adding that ratification of the agreement would increase investment.
He added that the recent deal with Essar of India which partnered Government to resuscitate Zisco Steel was testimony to how important trade relations between the two countries are.
Deputy Minister Undenge said Iran was also an important player in trade considering that there were Iranian companies that are already operating in Zimbabwe.
The BIPPAs now await approval by the Senate before Presidential assent if there is no dispute.
Labels: BIPPA, BOTSWANA, CREDIT FACILITIES, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
MDC and the fictitious BIPPA
By: By Prof Jonathan Moyo, MP
Posted: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:54 am
ON Wednesday last week, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s office attempted but failed to cause a political storm through an ill-informed statement issued by Minister Gorden Moyo charging that Cde George Charamba, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity should be disciplined by GPA principals for allegedly undermining the Prime Minister’s authority over a non-existent Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement between Zimbabwe and South Korea.
There are three reasons why the attempted political storm failed.
First, it is not easy to generate a political storm over something that does not exist, as there is no procedurally and legally signed BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea.
Second, the Prime Minister’s office needs to learn one or two things about timing when it comes to news-making because by Wednesday last week, Zimbabweans and South Koreans were, along with the rest of the world, already preoccupied with the start of the 2010 Soccer World Cup finals south of the Limpopo and could not be bothered with an alleged storm over a fictitious BIPPA.
Third, and most important, the attempted political storm was doomed to fail because it was based on the following four MDC-T falsehoods:
- The persistent and hopeless MDC-T lie that Prime Minister Tsvangirai is the head of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe;
- The ridiculous MDC-T presumption, which is of course false, that the very same architects, supporters and beneficiaries of the illegal and evil Western economic sanctions against Zimbabwe which have hurt ordinary people the most can also be the champions of direct foreign investment through instruments such as the purported BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea;
- The MDC-T nonsense, which is worse than a falsehood, that a Cabinet minister can use a power of attorney to delegate his or her powers and functions to another Cabinet minister; and;
- The naive MDC-T belief, which falsely assumes that politicians, particularly the so-called GPA principals, have the constitutional power to discipline civil servants.
An examination of each of these falsehoods should show beyond any doubt why Minister Gorden Moyo’s outburst against Charamba was exactly the kind of political rubbish that has come to be expected from him. Here’s why.
For all the propaganda battering our country gets from its detractors whose main gripe is that they do not want to see the legacy of our liberation struggle taking permanent root, the fact remains that Zimbabwe has one of the most professional bureaucracies, including the army and police, you can get around the world. This is why our bureaucrats and officers are among the most sought-after by the international community.
A major reason for this is the well entrenched administrative practice in our bureaucracy which distinguishes between politics and administration such that our civil servants, including permanent secretaries, are employed and only disciplined not by politicians but by the Public Service Commission which is an independent, professional and constitutional body not run by politicians.
Gorden Moyo’s outburst that Charamba should be disciplined by politicians, one wonders by what means short of a public flogging, belies not only his ignorance of Zimbabwe’s system of governance but also exposes the MDC-T’s lie about its alleged commitment to good governance which more than anything else requires a clear separation between politics and administration.
Charamba is an administrator and not a politician and yet the unacceptable threats of jungle discipline against him are coming from dangerous politicians in the Prime Minister’s office with vested interests in Tsvangirai’s blundering. Surely, that cannot be an example of good governance.
Parenthetically, it is infantile for the Prime Minister’s office to imagine that referring Charamba to the so-called political principals as defined in the GPA is a big deal.
We are a constitutional democracy and we do not want to become a country of GPA or ABC political principals. More than that, we in Zanu-PF know our political principals by their names and led by President Robert Mugabe they include Vice Presidents Joice Mujuru and John Nkomo among others we have known for years.
Otherwise, on the matter at hand, the public record will show that one the MDC-T’s GPA afterthoughts is its political dislike and personal hatred of Charamba as permanent secretary in the media, information and publicity ministry. Gorden Moyo’s outburst had more to do with that than a non-existent BIPPA.
Indeed, if Charamba had a case to answer over the BIPPA issue, the competent authority to handle the matter would be the PSC but Gorden Moyo’s outburst did not even suggest that he knows there’s something called the PSC although he mumbled some mumbo jumbo about "ethics of the civil service" in his claim that Charamba was "unethical" when clarified the true position about the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea. The clear but absurd implication was that it is unethical to correct Tsvangirai.
One thing should be very clear. While politicians can prevaricate or even lie for all they want, civil servants have a professional duty to tell things as they are. As things stand, what Charamba said about the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea, which he had a duty to clarify as the permanent secretary responsible for information, is the factual, administrative and lawful position.
To call that position "unethical" or "irrational" as have done the Prime Minister’s office and its unthinking media hacks is hogwash.
The South Koreans and serious prospective investors understand that something unprocedural and illegal cannot be ethical or rational.
Then there is the claim by Gorden Moyo that the alleged BIPPA between Zimbabwe and South Korea, which was unprocedurally and illegally signed by the Minister of Science and Technology, Heneri Dzinotyiwei, is valid because the minister responsible for signing BIPPAs, Elton Mangoma who is in charge of Economic Planning and Investment, "officially" gave Dzinotyiwei "a power of attorney".
Now this is pathetic. Does the Prime Minister’s office really expect to be taken seriously by asserting that a Cabinet minister can delegate his or her powers and functions to another minister by dint of some power of attorney of all things? That is the stuff of banana republics or parallel governments.
For the record, it should be known and understood that in Zimbabwe the executive functions and powers of Cabinet ministers are assigned to ministers by the Head of State and Government and the Commander in Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and through Acts of Parliament and that is President Mugabe.
When there is a temporary need to reassign the powers and functions of a particular minister to another, it is done by the President, not some power of attorney, through a notice in the Government Gazette.
As such, if Minister Dzinotyiwei had lawful authority to sign a BIPPA with South Korea on behalf of the Republic of Zimbabwe as claimed by the Prime Minister’s office through Gorden Moyo, then it should produce or point to the relevant Government Gazette with the relevant notice. That would settle the matter but such a notice is as non-existent as the alleged BIPPA!
Then there is the amazing claim, touted by MDC-T media hacks, that the alleged BIPPA is an example of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s efforts to bring foreign direct investment to our country. Well, one needs to sit down to deal with this one because it is breathtakingly ridiculous.
For the avoidance of doubt nobody is opposed to having foreign direct investment through whatever channel including any effort by Prime Minister Tsvangirai as long as that is done lawfully through the transparent and accountable systems of the State.
But we now know that the MDC-T does not believe in transparency and accountability, which it treats as relevant only where Tsvangirai is personally involved.
For example this has come through the MDC-T’s opposition to the Marange diamond mining activities of Mbada and Canadile despite the fact that the two companies are in lawful partnership with ZMDC who are lawful owners of the mining rights in the Marange diamond fields.
The MDC-T’s perverted view of transparency is akin to that of a naughty pastor who solemnises a couple’s marriage during the day only to show up in their bedroom at night demanding that they consummate the marriage with him watching it all in the name of transparency.
If Tsvangirai wants to bring investment to Zimbabwe, which would be most welcome, he should do so openly, procedurally and lawfully in the letter and spirit of good governance and he must allow the various arms of government outside his office, such as media, information and publicity, to do their work without poking his nose in their business.
That is the simple but important point which some overzealous MDC-T media hacks have conveniently missed in their apparent desperation to market their tired copy to the dwindling MDC-T constituency.
But there is also a more fundamental point here. It is very difficult if not impossible for any fair minded person to believe the notion that those like Prime Minister Tsvangirai who are architects or supporters or beneficiaries of the prevailing evil and illegal Western economic sanctions can also be champions of direct foreign investment in our country through BIPPAs or whatever channel. Surely, that is a contradiction.
If Prime Minister Tsvangirai and his office truly want foreign direct investment in Zimbabwe then the first and major thing they must do is to unequivocally and persistently seek the removal of the evil and illegal Western economic sanctions before pursuing any BIPPA, especially with Western aligned countries such as South Korea.
Even fools must know that the reason why we do not have foreign direct investment from Western countries and their allies at the moment is not because we do not have BIPPAs with countries such as South Korea but because we have evil and illegal economic sanctions.
Anyone who does not understand this will never ever understand anything.
Finally, the Prime Minister’s office and indeed the MDC-T and its founders and funders must appreciate that the real reason behind the failed furore over the false Zimbabwe-South Korea BIPPA is too apparent to hide.
The issue is not about the alleged BIPPA and it is not about Charamba either but about Tsvangirai’s long standing yet hopeless effort since February 13, 2009 to pose as the head of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe.
Despite the fact that everyone, including all MDC-T cabinet ministers and indeed Tsvangirai himself, knows that Zimbabwe’s Head of State and Government and the Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces is President Mugabe, there has been a continuous and thus relentless propaganda campaign to present Tsvangirai as the head of government in Zimbabwe when there’s no factual, legal, constitutional or even GPA basis for that.
The mess over the alleged Zimbabwe-South Korea BIPPA is nothing but an outrageous propaganda stunt. We are now supposed to think that, as the alleged head of government Tsvangirai went to South Korea to secure foreign direct investment from that country to help recover our economy when we all know that he actually went there to receive a dubious honorary degree with no national meaning or purpose beyond his personal interest.
The message to Tsvangirai, his founders and funders, cronies and media hacks should now be very clear: for the sake of all of us, the MDC-T’s propaganda that Tsvangirai is the head of government has gone too far and enough should be enough such that the time has now come for Tsvangirai to get real outside propaganda games.
Charamba is doing a sterling job for his country as a professional, Tsvangirai and Gorden Moyo should do theirs as politicians.
____________________________
This article is reproduced from The Herald newspaper.
Labels: BIPPA, GEORGE CHARAMBA, GORDEN MOYO, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Tsvangirai: From east without wisdom
by Nathaniel Manheru
14/06/2010 00:00:00
LAST week saw a loud conflict between the Prime Minister and President Mugabe’s spokesman, George Charamba. The conflict is over the Prime Minister’s recent trip to South Korea, during which he claimed to have signed a BIPPA with the host country. The spokesperson says no, nothing of that sort happened.
The Prime Minister says no, the spokesperson is undermining his Office, in the process threatening disciplinary action. Charamba will not retract, and dares the Prime Minister.
What BIPPA?
BIPPAS are about relations between two countries intent on an investment relationship. They bind two governments, two peoples really. They are internationally enforced, which is what makes them serious documents. They have to be ratified by Parliament. Governments take BIPPAS very seriously. In our case, they are an inter-ministerial affair, with Economic Planning taking the lead. The idea is to make sure the country is not prejudiced.
The lead Ministry is expected to draw up broad principles which are discussed by a Committee of Cabinet on Legislation called CCL. These principles subsequently guide the Attorney General as he prepares a draft BIPPA document, working closely with the lead ministry. The draft goes back to CCL for another scrutiny and possible changes. It is only when the CCL is satisfied that the matter is booked with the Chief Secretary for tabling in Cabinet.
Cabinet will in turn look at the draft which is presented by chairman of CCL, Justice Minister Chinamasa. More changes, or even rejection, until Cabinet is satisfied. Only then does the President feel empowered to grant signing powers to the lead Minister, in this case Minister Mangoma. I have simplified complex process, but this helps give a feel of the general drift of things.
The responsible Minister will only get signing powers from the President who wields them by dint of the Constitution. No minister wields such powers inherently. They devolve from the President who remains solely responsible for their use. In terms of our laws, the Prime Minister has no such powers.
Relating all this to the matter on hand, Cabinet should have affirmed a draft document from CCL on a probable BIPPA with South Korea, on the strength of which the President would then have delegated signing powers to Minister Mangoma. And delegated authority cannot be further delegated by the immediate beneficiary to another.
You cannot parcel out powers you do not own. It is that simple. Equally, you cannot delegate power upwards. A tortoise cannot drop dung on an eagle in flight. Minister Mangoma could not delegate delegated powers to another Minister – ordinary or prime. These are not his powers in the first place, and Minister Gorden Moyo — the Prime Minister’s killer-man — appears to be having difficulties in comprehending that elementary rule.
Flowing against gravity
And since the Prime Minister is the one who took the ill-fated decision to proceed with the signing ceremony, apparently against advice from Foreign Affairs through Ambassador Stuart Comberbach, it means Minister Mangoma is assumed to have delegated the President’s powers upwards, to his senior, who in turn poured down those same borrowed powers to another Minister, Professor Dzinotyiwei.
I am surprised that after such giddy flight, there was still enough power left for him to finish writing his long surname! In theory the good professor would have used profoundly attenuated powers, powers badly fatigued by the long, tortuous road to him. Such powers have no spark, only trouble for the haver!
Surely if the President knew about this assignment, he would have released Minister Mangoma to go and do the job, or alternatively, given powers of attorney to Minister Dzinotyiwei as a Minister of Government?
But all this is to take matters to far, in fact to be too generous with a process so fraught, so drunk. Cabinet does not have before it any draft BIPPA document with South Korea. It may, some day, but presently there is no such document put before it by the Chief Secretary.
That it is there at CCL level can only be a rumour to the President and Prime Minister, both of whom are not members of that Committee. Matters must come before them to exist. They haven’t. I fail to see Minister Moyo’s point when he asserts that the document came before CCL. It could have, for all we know. But so what? That does not make it a document of Government.
It makes it a document in Government. And there are many documents generated every single day in Government. In any case and quite logically, a committee of Cabinet is not Cabinet itself. Surely Honourable Moyo is profound enough to know that? If not, God help us!
I repeat: the damn thing is not before Cabinet. Ask Honourable Chinamasa as has done I, Nhataniyere, the truly begotten son of dark Night! The Prime Minister knows that. Gorden Moyo knows that. Foreign Affairs dutifully reminded the Prime Minister about that. And at some point the Prime Minister appeared to have understood that.
Until a great happening took over and he chose — last minute — to go ahead with the mock signing ceremony, regardless. The Koreans knew that, as did our Honorary Consular General who did the dutiful. Their ambassador here knows that there is no documentation for a BIPPA between his country and my Zimbabwe.
Still the Prime Minister went ahead, adding "zvimwe zvese tichazonozvigadzirisa kumusha." He knew perfectly well his actions we fraught with legal and procedural deficits. But like the proverbial fly, he chose to follow the corpse into the grave. See where he is now!
Renegotiating GPA
Yet his actions sought to bind this country and the Government he is a part of. The agreement touches on our strategic minerals, something South Korea wants.
Yet the Prime Minister’s actions undermined the very Constitution he swore to uphold. He undermined the authority of the President, usurped his powers in fact. Apart from pretending to devolve powers he does not have, he called himself "head of Government", which he is not.
His actions in South Korea amount to the first material step towards turning this self-adulatory appellation his obliging minions wrongly shower him with, into concrete, executive action at the expense of the President and the Constitution.
It is an attempt to renegotiate the GPA and a new constitution by precedent-setting misdeeds! Actions calculated to place the man above Cabinet, to embolden him in intercepting documents still in the mill, documents well not before him.
Repairing life after burial
Let us situate this misbehaviour. Frankly, the problem is larger, its portents too serious to be ignored.
Firstly, this is the conduct of a man within striking distance of power, yet exhibiting such glib deference to the law and processes. He does not seem to know that this thing called government is a bundle of sensitive rules and procedures, the violation of which draws a line between democracy and dictatorship. Laws and procedures check power, while legitimising its exercise.
And power is no toy. When a man proceeds to do the unlawful, the un-procedural, on the proviso that tichazvigadzira pasure, what stops him from condemning life in the hope of repairing it after burial?
Secondly, for quite some time and on a number of trips, the Prime Minister has donned the garb of Government, drawn resources of the State, only to chase matters that have nothing to do with the interests of the State. He did so twice in America; did so in Europe and has now done so again in South Korea. Don’t get me wrong.
The Prime Minister can chase any matter of interest to him, in line with the bundle of roles that make up his public personality.
He leads a party; he is a prime minister; he is a father, a lover and all. But each role comes with its own identity, resources and mandate.
He is free to do anything as leader of his Party, his actions only drawing the concern of his Party members. But as a Government functionary, he is not free to do anything he pleases, his way and in his style.
He plays preordained roles, to rules that have to be obeyed, willy-nilly.
Dismissed at will
As Prime Minister of this country, you do not draw Government resources, wear the authority of the State, only to undermine that same State you serve.
The Prime Minister is in this shabby habit of summarily dismissing ambassadors of Zimbabwe from meetings with foreigners, meetings in which he purports to be pursuing interests of the State.
He did that in Washington, in Europe and lately in South Korea. Our ambassadors are dismissed at will, recalled at whim, to serve a Prime Minister who does not seem to know when to be Prime Minister, when to be a leader of a political party and when to be a private citizen. And all these whimsical decisions are done in front of foreigners to whom these ambassadors present credentials, with whom these ambassadors transact inter-state business.
Now, tell me which State respects an ambassador who is sacked, reinstated, sacked, sacked, reinstated in one day by his Principals? A Prime Minister of this country humiliates his own ambassador until his host asks the whereabouts of that ambassador? A Prime Minister who commits his entire programme to some white American woman unknown to his Government?
Can that be Government business? Why should it not be known by the envoy of Zimbabwe? Who follows up when the Prime Minister has gone back? And I am not talking of junior ambassadors at all. I am talking of men and women who are synonymous with diplomacy as we have known it since Independence. I challenge the Prime Minister to give this nation the value of his travels abroad.
When Trudy ran the President
Not so with the President. Recently, he went to Senegal where MDC-M’s Trudy Stevenson is Zimbabwe’s ambassador.
She not only shaped the President’s programme; she dictated where the President went, and with whom; determined what he ate, including eating in her home, from her pots.
Why does the Prime Minister humiliate senior career diplomats, substituting them with foreigners or those small, inexperienced boys in his Office when he purports to be doing Government work? Is that not undermining Government, taking advantage of it in fact? Are principals going to meet over that? Is it any surprise that Carson can afford to abuse our Mapuranga on the day we mark Africa and her futures?
The Prime Minister is free to walk the world, sourcing funding for his cause. But he goes on such errands as the president of MDC-T, never as the Prime Minister of this country.
He should never levy prime ministerial deference from us for errands that cut him out as a leader of a political party. We may not belong to his party, may not believe in his cause which has spawned so much suffering for the Zimbabwean people.
It is only when he fulfils his role as Prime Minister of this country that we doff and defer to him. Not this. Not this, this his bad habit of seeking to augment his mandate, of seeking to renegotiate the GPA, of seeking to rewrite the Constitution through calculated misdeeds.
Unwise from the East
Frankly, the conduct of the Prime Minister in South Korea makes one wonder whether at all he went there on Government business.
The honorary degree he got from his Korean counterpart’s former university is his to have, his to enjoy. It does not relieve pressure from a struggling family living in Mbare. The one-student-per-year scholarship he got from the Koreans will, quite predictably, go to his party activists.
It is not like the Presidential Programme that has educated thousands, including one of the Prime Minister’s own. The money he got there is going to his own party. It feeds not a single victim of the sanctions he asked for and got.
The strategy of using third nations to channel resources to his party is an American one. It is not Zimbabwean.
Equally his role in checkmating China in Zimbabwe, in defeating Zimbabwe’s Look East policy using South Korea as a springboard, satisfies America and her ignoble global calculations. Zimbabwe profits nothing from it. And his search for a greater symbolism for his person helps his party, not Zimbabwe. Mister Prime Minister, those from the East usually came back wiser.
Icho! This article was first published by The Herald
Labels: BIPPA, GEORGE CHARAMBA, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, SOUTH KOREA
Read more...
Tsvangirai, Charamba row escalates
by Lebo Nkatazo
14/06/2010 00:00:00
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe's spokesman George Charamba has raised tensions further in the unity government after appearing to declare he will not retract controversial comments questioning the validity of a
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement signed with South Korea by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
In a newspaper column published under a pseudonym in the state-run Herald newspaper last Saturday, Charamba said Tsvangirai had ignored advice from foreign ministry officials warning that signing the BIPPA breached government procedures.
And referring to himself in the third person, Charamba said: "This week saw a loud conflict between the Prime Minister and President Mugabe’s spokesman, George Charamba. The conflict is over the Prime Minister’s recent trip to South Korea, during which he claimed to have signed a BIPPA with the host country.
"The spokesperson says no, nothing of that sort happened. The Prime Minister says no, the spokesperson is undermining his Office, in the process threatening disciplinary action. Charamba will not retract, and dares the Prime Minister."
Tsvangirai has said he wants Charamba disciplined after Mugabe's wordsmith called the agreement with South Korea “null and void” last week.
“It is absurd, to say the least,” Charamba told state media when asked about the agreement. “As far as I know, and I have checked, the President never made any such delegation so in effect no BIPPA was signed in Korea.”
In his column last Saturday, published under the pseudonym Nathaniel Manheru, Charamba said only the Minister of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion Elton Mangoma could have been given signing powers by President Mugabe “who wields them by dint of the Constitution”.
“No minister wields such powers inherently. They devolve from the President who remains solely responsible for their use. In terms of our laws, the Prime Minister has no such powers,” Charamba wrote.
The latest incident will serve to highlight growing tensions in the year-old unity government. Tsvangirai’s supporters say Mugabe still wields all power, and routinely undermines Tsvangirai -- in the process slowing down economic and political reforms.
[Read the Nathaniel Manheru Column]
Labels: BIPPA, GEORGE CHARAMBA, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI
Read more...
Zim ratifies trade pact with SA
by
21/05/2010 00:00:00
ZIMBABWE has finally ratified a trade pact agreed with South Africa which is aimed at the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments between the two countries.
Ratification of the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) comes months after the deal was signed by economic planning minister Elton Mangoma and South Africa’s trade minister Rob Davies in Harare last November.
The economic planning ministry said the BIPPA came into effect on May 15 this year, but gave no reasons for the delay in its ratification.
“The purpose of the agreement is to stimulate individual business initiatives and increase prosperity in both countries through the creation of favorable conditions for investment by South African investors in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean investors in South Africa," the ministry said in a statement.
Negotiations for the deal started in 2002 and were driven by both governments’ desire to signal to existing and potential investors that they would abide by international norms regarding property rights.
South African companies – by far the largest African investors in Zimbabwe’s economy – were particularly keen to have anxieties about the security of their investments allayed in the wake of the country’s land reforms.
"The agreement provides legal certainty for those engaged in investments in Zimbabwe and we are committed together with the Zimbabwe government that all the commitments that are in this agreement are honoured.
"This agreement will provide the legal security that is required by present and future investors in this country." Economic Planning Minister Elton Mangoma said when the agreement was signed last year.
However, efforts by South African farmers whose land was acquired for resettlement to have the agreement cover such properties were unsuccessful with both countries insisting the deal would not be applied retrospectively.
A clause in the agreement reads: “the agreement applies to all investments, whether made before or after the date of entry into force of (the) agreement, but shall not apply to any property right or interest compulsorily acquired by either Party in its own territory before the entry into force of this Agreement”.
Labels: BIPPA, ELTON MANGOMA, ROB DAVIES, TRADE
Read more...
Zim, SA to sign investment promotion agreement
Philip Murombedzi
Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:31:00 +0000
President Mugabe (R) discusses investment in Zimbabwe with South African businessman Patrice Motsepe in Harare, April 6, 2009.
AFTER a decade of negotiations, the governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa will on Friday sign a Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Bippa) to boost investment in Zimbabwe. The South African Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies made the announcement Tuesday.
Davies said the two governments were going to go ahead with the agreement unless there were legal issues brought to the fore to warrant delay in signing the agreement.
“I have not seen anything from the legal perspective and we have been communicating to the parties there was no possible way in the world that we can persuade Zimbabwe otherwise,” he said.
Quizzed about the land reform programme in Zimbabwe, Davies said the word 'land' does not appear in the agreement and it (the agreement) will not interfere with the Zimbabwe government's land reform programme.
He added that past events, such as those pertaining to land reform would not be addressed retrospectively, adding that the agreement would protect South African interests only from the date it is signed.
The investment protection agreement will provide relief, particularly to South African investors in Zimbabwe's mining, commercial and industrial sectors and should help increase foreign investor confidence.
Once the agreement is signed it will have to be ratified by parliaments in both countries.
The parties to the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe support the agreement which they hope will help boost the much needed investment in the country.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC-T party have put its weight behind the agreement.
WHITE FARMERS TO FIGHT BIPPA IN COURT
White commercial farmers who are traditional supporters of the MDC-T party say PM Tsvangirai has done little to "protect" them as the agreement does not address the issue of compensation.
The farmers provided considerable funding to the MDC shortly after it was launched in late 1999 and that many of them assisted the MDC fight elections.
However, in the Global Political Areement which led to the formation of Zimbabwe's inclusive Government in February, PM Tsvangirai committed his party to recognizing that the land reform programme was irreversible.
The white commercial farmers in both Zimbabwe and South Africa have criticised the agreement saying it does not adequately address the issue of compensation for farmers who are in properties designated for acquisition under the third phase of the Zimbabwean land reform programme.
Agricultural unions representing these farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa were up in arms on Thursday over the proposed agreement.
They say that they will challenge Bippa in the North Gauteng High Court on Thursday saying it is unlawful.
AGRI SA and Zimbabwe’s Commercial Farmers Union argue that the proposed agreement contained an exclusion clause making it unconstitutional and discriminatory.
In terms of the agreement South African farmers’ interests in Zimbabwe will not be protected.
President Mugabe argues that Britain has reneged on its obligation to compensate commercial farmers whose land was designated by Government. At the 1979 Lancaster House talks, Britain pledged to pay compensation to white commercial farmers whose farms were acquired by government.
The New Labour government of then Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to pay compensation saying they were not directly responsible for colonisation of Zimbabwe, nor where they morally obligated to pay compensation.
Labels: BIPPA, INVESTMENT, MUGABE, PATRICE MOTSEPE, SOUTH AFRICA
Read more...
Zim, SA to sign investment promotion agreement
Philip Murombedzi
Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:31:00 +0000
AFTER a decade of negotiations, the governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa will on Friday sign a Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (Bippa) to boost investment in Zimbabwe. The South African Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies made the announcement Tuesday.
Davies said the two governments were going to go ahead with the agreement unless there were legal issues brought to the fore to warrant delay in signing the agreement.
“I have not seen anything from the legal perspective and we have been communicating to the parties there was no possible way in the world that we can persuade Zimbabwe otherwise,” he said.
Quizzed about the land reform programme in Zimbabwe, Davies said the word 'land' does not appear in the agreement and it (the agreement) will not interfere with the Zimbabwe government's land reform programme.
He added that past events, such as those pertaining to land reform would not be addressed retrospectively, adding that the agreement would protect South African interests only from the date it is signed.
The investment protection agreement will provide relief, particularly to South African investors in Zimbabwe's mining, commercial and industrial sectors and should help increase foreign investor confidence.
Once the agreement is signed it will have to be ratified by parliaments in both countries.
The parties to the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe support the agreement which they hope will help boost the much needed investment in the country.
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC-T party have put its weight behind the agreement.
WHITE FARMERS TO FIGHT BIPPA IN COURT
White commercial farmers who are traditional supporters of the MDC-T party say PM Tsvangirai has done little to "protect" them as the agreement does not address the issue of compensation.
The farmers provided considerable funding to the MDC shortly after it was launched in late 1999 and that many of them assisted the MDC fight elections.
However, in the Global Political Areement which led to the formation of Zimbabwe's inclusive Government in February, PM Tsvangirai committed his party to recognizing that the land reform programme was irreversible.
The white commercial farmers in both Zimbabwe and South Africa have criticised the agreement saying it does not adequately address the issue of compensation for farmers who are in properties designated for acquisition under the third phase of the Zimbabwean land reform programme.
Agricultural unions representing these farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa were up in arms on Thursday over the proposed agreement.
They say that they will challenge Bippa in the North Gauteng High Court on Thursday saying it is unlawful.
AGRI SA and Zimbabwe’s Commercial Farmers Union argue that the proposed agreement contained an exclusion clause making it unconstitutional and discriminatory.
In terms of the agreement South African farmers’ interests in Zimbabwe will not be protected.
President Mugabe argues that Britain has reneged on its obligation to compensate commercial farmers whose land was designated by Government. At the 1979 Lancaster House talks, Britain pledged to pay compensation to white commercial farmers whose farms were acquired by government.
The New Labour government of then Prime Minister Tony Blair refused to pay compensation saying they were not directly responsible for colonisation of Zimbabwe, nor where they morally obligated to pay compensation.
Labels: BIPPA, INVESTMENT, LAND REFORM, SOUTH AFRICA, WHITE FARMERS, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
