fbpx
Connect with us

Editorial

The SMM Reconstruction Debacle: Chinamasa’s Controversial Decision Versus Reports and Recommendations from Investigators and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

Brian Kazungu

Published

on

Patrick Chinamasa: Picture Credit - newzimbabwe.com

Brian Kazungu, 13/04/2021

Back in the early 2000s, Shabani Mashava Mine (SMM) was a breath of life and a reservoir of hope to the Zimbabwean economy, the people of Zvishavane and surrounding areas as this asbestos mining giant sustained livelihoods and contributed taxes to the fiscus.

However, the rays of light from this shining corporate star began to fade as allegations of externalization were levelled against Mutumwa Mawere, the shareholder of Africa Resources Limited (ARL), a company that was domiciled outside the jurisdiction of Zimbabwe.

SMM’s shareholding was directly held by SMM Holdings Limited (SMMH), a United Kingdom registered private company rather than by Mawere himself and as such, the whole debacle was mired in the confusion over ownership and control of companies.

Even though SMM has been placed under extra-judicial administration for over 17 years, no facts have been produced to support the allegation of externalization which Chinamasa and crew used in divesting and depriving SMMH of its control over SMM.

In subjecting SMM under Reconstruction, it was being alleged that proceeds from its sales of asbestos were being diverted by Mawere in South Africa and yet, SMM the exporter, sold its products through agents of which end customers would pay SMM through those agents.

These agents were only entitled to a commission, and so far, no evidence has been produced showing payments by SMM’s customers into Mawere’s personal bank accounts.

The controversial crime of externalization which still and only exists in Zimbabwe even after the removal of Mugabe and which seemed to be only targeted at selected exporters including SMM was once described by former Education Minister, Professor Moyo as satanic and barbaric.

Chinamasa’s involvement in the ‘SMM heist’ even though being at odds with investigators and RBZ reports is alleged to be merely based on hearsay evidence from Edwin Manikai and Afaras Gwaradzimba, former service providers to the company.

Gwaradzimba and Manikai who were SMM auditor and legal advisor respectively before the Reconstruction went on to become Administrator and Legal representative respectively against their former client, a move which was described as a corporate governance irregularity.

Even though the government, through the then Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa appointed Afaras Gwaradzimba as the Administrator in exchange for a notable 6% income from the gross revenue of the business as a turn-around attempt, the result thereof was negative and deplorable.

The situation in the company deteriorated and many of those who depended on it for their survival including a staggering five thousand (5000) workers were left desperate as the so-called government recovery plan in the company failed to bear meaningful results.

In parliament, the SMM issue was hotly debated especially bordering on the legality and effectiveness of processes and provisions that were being implemented with some being said to be unconstitutional political interference by Members of Parliament such Job Sikhala.

Questions that now arise on this critical matter are, if the investigators and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe found no wrong doing in SMM and Mawere, what then enabled the government to do a fast track grab of this company using unusual political and ‘legal’ means?

 In a 20th July 2005 Parliamentary Debate under the motion ‘Economic Challenges Facing Zimbabwe’, Member of Parliament, Job Sikhala asked the Minister of State Enterprises, Anti-Monopolies and Anti-Corruption to shed light on the indebtedness of SMM.

The Minister of Justice, Patrick Chinamasa in response said “I have already alluded to my earlier responses, as at the 6th September 2004, when I issued the Reconstruction Order, SMM Holdings was indebted to the State in the sum of Z$115 billion between that date and April 2005.”

However, on the contrary, in his submissions to the late President Robert Mugabe, RBZ Governor, Gideon Gono said “Based on information available, the Bank has also tested the veracity of the declaration of SMM as “an Insolvent State-Indebted Company” upon which the Reconstruction Law was created and applied….

…Your Excellency, at law the above SMM liabilities at the time the Reconstruction Order was instituted did not qualify as state loans to SMM.”

More-so, an executive summary of the final report on the findings of an investigation into the affairs of SMM and allegations of externalisation against Mawere which was done by the Investigator, Assistant Commissioner, Mr. S. Mangoma etal cleared him and SMM of wrong doing by stating the following:

“We have established that there is no connection between the acquisition of SMM and the guarantees granted to SMM.  The guarantees were used to convert expensive short-term facilities into a medium term loan. 

The facility was structured and negotiated by SMM’s financial advisors, First Merchant Bank (FMB).

The acquisition of SMM was not guaranteed by the government rather it was a leveraged buy-out in which the assets of SMM were used to acquire the shares in its holding company under an arrangement approved by the RBZ.”

In contrast to the above, Chinamasa adamantly blamed SMM’s debacle on Mawere who he regarded as financially imprudent, and said if only the owners had not externalised US18.5 million dollars and a lot of foreign currency in Rands and Canadian dollars, there wouldn’t have been any state intervention.

“If that had not happened, the company could have been very viable and we would not have had any reason to interfere at all in its operations……If he (Mawere) had run the operations in a prudent manner, he would have been able to come out of debt, but he did not.

There were huge interests where he (Mawere) would go into SMMH, dip into the till to go and buy other things like Schweppes instead of ploughing back into the company what would have been made from the sales of the proceeds of the company.

That was not being done. Instead, the money was being used to buy other companies and he lost control completely to the creditors and we happened as a State to be one of the creditors.” Chinamasa reiterated.

However, Gono refuted Chinamasa’s perception of corporate dynamics in the SMM matter by clarifying that state institutions which transacted with SMM had autonomy in those dealings and thus their credit to the asbestos maker could not be ‘blanketed’ as State credit

“The RBZ’s Productive Sector Facility (PSF) loans, MMCZ’s loan, ZESA bills, NSSA bills and ZIMRA bills, whilst they could be linked to the State indirectly by extrapolation, were nevertheless still debts between SMM as a legal entity and each one of these institutions in their own right as creatures of statutes, and not directly the State.

….A further complication that I see weakening the State’s moral, constitutional and legal standing is that the loans provided to SMM were never triggered by any formal contract between the State and SMM. The State has to this date failed to produce any such direct contract.” Gono explained.

The former Reserve Bank Governor further decried the possible negative impact of the continued placement of Mawere and SMM under specification and reconstruction respectively citing that it was likely to stain the country’s image and affect investment.

As things went, and as things stand, the State is, therefore, exposed to the risk that the investor community may conclude that the letter and spirit of property rights, human rights and company law is not being followed in so far as the rights of shareholders, debtors, creditors, employees and any other relevant parties are concerned. This is not good for Government’s and the country’s image, Your Excellency. The RBZ Governor pleaded with President Mugabe.

However, contrary to investigators’ findings and the RBZ’s recommendations, Chinamasa took the whole issue the other way round claiming that his actions were in the interest of the State and the people of Zvishavane.

“The whole Zvishavane community rotates around SMMH. So the government had to intervene in the national interest in order to rescue the company in order to order to ensure that the company continues to be a leading foreign exchange earner in our economy”. Chinamasa said.

Interestingly, even though he is a lawyer and was the Minister of Justice, his actions including the appointment of Gwaradzimba as the SMM Administrator were challenged in Parliament and reported as unlawful in reports by investigators and the by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.

The Act and process of Reconstruction in the SMM matter was controversial from the onset with fears that it was designed to mischievously take over companies from their legal owners while in some instances Chinamasa seemed to be contradicting himself in its interpretation.

In the parliamentary report (Vol 32, No 16), he was quoted as defending the constitutionality of the Reconstruction route by inferring that it was a judicial instrument since it is done subject to confirmation by the High Court.

“The Reconstruction Order is done through the judiciary as the Reconstruction Order issued by the Minister of Justice is subject to confirmation by the High Court.” He said

However, in an affidavit, he said that “At the time I issued the Reconstruction order, there was no provision in the Reconstruction Regulations which required me to seek confirmation of a Reconstruction Order by a Judge or Court.”

Gwaradzimba’s appointment as the SMM Administrator has also always been mired in controversy.

Even though he was appointed as the Administrator on his personal capacity, he controversially used his company AMG Global as a Government nominee in SMMH’s share transfers of which SMMH has recently raised a red flag on a possible fraudulent share transfer in the matter.

Investigators in the SMM saga found Gwaradzimba’s appointment to be a conflict of interest since he was a former SMM auditor. “….it is the considered opinion of the Investigators that the appointment of Gwaradzimba and Manikai was ill considered and, therefore, inappropriate…” The investigators said.

In the same vein, the RBZ also regarded his remuneration in the SMM deal to be ‘unscrupulous’.

“…..the fact still remains that Mr Gwaradzimba, the Administrator is getting payments set at 6% of gross proceeds, of all SMM companies which is even more lucrative than shareholders themselves, let alone revenues to Government.” Gono raised an alarm.

It is therefore disturbing to note that regardless of overwhelming evidence against the Act and the process of Reconstruction in the SMM matter, it was allowed to continue at the expense of various stakeholders including shareholders, the community and the country at large.

Brian Kazungu is an Author, Poet, Journalist, and Technology Enthusiast whose writing covers issues to do with Business, Travelling, Motivation and Inspiration, Religion, Politics, and Communication among others. https://www.amazon.com/author/briankazungu https://muckrack.com/brian-kazungu http://www.modernghana.com/author/BrianKazungu kazungu.brian@gmail.com @BKazungu-Twitter He has written and published several books covering various aspects of human life including leadership, entrepreneurship, politics, personal development as well as poetry and travel. These books are found on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/author/briankazungu

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial

SMM Corporate Heist, The Reconstruction That Never Was

Brian Kazungu

Published

on

Patrick Chinamasa: Picture Credit - newzimbabwe.com

Brian Kazungu, 25/04/2021

The world is full of tragic stories of cruel dispossession where rightful owners of properties, big or small, expensive or cheap have been stripped of the right to enjoy what legally belongs to them, sometimes even through the manipulation of the law by those meant to be its custodians.

This is quite often the reality in communities where there are serious violations of the rule of law which includes but is not limited to judicial capture.

One story that stands out in the history of corporate heists is the divestment of shareholders of a company called SMM Zimbabwe in 2004 through an extrajudicial mechanism, where a Minister of Justice, through the circumvention of courts, paved way for the take-over of a mining giant.

SMM Zimbabwe is a company whose shares were wholly owned by SMM Holdings, a United Kingdom registered business which was purchased from T&N Holdings by Africa Resources Limited (ARL) but was later put under reconstruction on allegations of state indebtedness.

For almost two decades, SMM has controversially patrolled the ‘streets of merchants’ with a mirage of a company under reconstruction subject to the Reconstruction Act and yet in full display of the behaviour of a normal company that is subject to the Companies Act.

In putting this company under Reconstruction, then Minister of Justice in Zimbabwe, Patrick Chinamasa issued a Reconstruction Order and made Afaras Gwaradzimba to be the State Appointed Administrator as an alleged attempt to turn the fortunes of this asbestos mining giant.

While responding to questions in Parliament, Chinamasa claimed that SMM was being mismanaged and that its debt was going out of hand plus workers were not getting their salaries even for a period of up to three months.

Surprisingly, more than a decade later, the government appointed corporate ‘messiah’ has failed to perform any ‘business miracles’ in the ‘theatre of commerce’ and seems to have rather unleashed more industrial demons that continue to haunt workers and the people of Zvishavane.

In a disturbing twist of fate, a remedy which was allegedly meant to treat a mild financial illness ended up causing a long term corporate paralysis to a serious foreign currency earning company which employed thousands of people and which positively changed many lives in the country.

The workers which Chinamasa claimed to feel pity for are fed up with the drama in the company and have thus applied to the Minister of Mines to have Gwaradzimba given the red card for cruelty and incompetence as they are owed almost US$40 million and are being evicted from their homes.

Mr Justice Chinhema, Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Diamond and Allied Minerals Workers Union who is representing SMM workers said that Gwaradzimba has failed, neglected or refused to settle salary arrears in excess of over US$19 260 667.99 owed to current workers since January 2012 to November 2017. Salary arrears from December 2017 to date are yet to be computed. 991 ex-employees are owed US$17 676 537.50

Interestingly, unbeknown to these disgruntled workers, by virtue of having issued 76% of the SMM shares to Nickdale, an RBZ affiliated company, a development which confirms that a company is now reconstructed, Gwaradzimba technically ceases to have control over SMM.

More-so, while dealing with the above mentioned shares, Gwaradzimba, the SMM ‘guardian’, without the knowledge of the Registrar of Companies altered a traditional CR2 form to incorporate his signature, a development which has been widely described as an act of fraud.

As if that was not enough, he further on created a ‘fictitious’ company called SMM Holdings (UK) after a failed take-over of the actual SMM Holdings in the United Kingdom which was dismissed with costs by the UK Supreme Court of Appeal under case number A3/2008/0918.

To make matters worse, during President Mugabe’s reign, the Ministerial oversight of SMM was transferred from the Ministry of Justice where Gwaradzimba had sole control of SMM to the Ministry of Mines where a Board was appointed under ZMDC thus rendering Gwaradzimba ‘useless’.

As such, despite many circumstances that are on record which point to the illegality of Gwaradzimba’s continued stay at the helm of the troubled mining entity, he is still found at its helm even with his weight of ‘irresponsibility’ seeming to make the company sink further into the dungeons of business oblivion.

The SMM reconstruction justification put forward by Chinamasa then coupled with the controversial appointment of contested characters as company custodians in violation of corporate governance principles, has left many stakeholders including the State itself with an egg in the face as results on the ground shows no evidence of any meaningful rescue attempt.

In parliament, the SMM issue was hotly debated especially bordering on the legality and effectiveness of processes and provisions that were being implemented with some being said to be unconstitutional political interference by Members of Parliament such Job Sikhala.

The constitutionality of processes and provisions of the Reconstruction remedy were hotly debated by Members of Parliament but to no avail since the real reasons behind the whole SMM debacle seemed to beyond both business and the law since legal recommendations even by the highest financial institution in the country, the RBZ were thrown under the bus.

In a 20th July 2005 Parliamentary Debate under the motion ‘Economic Challenges Facing Zimbabwe’, Member of Parliament, Job Sikhala asked the Minister of State Enterprises, Anti-Monopolies and Anti-Corruption to shed light on the indebtedness of SMM.

Gwaradzimba, a former auditor of SMM’s appointment to become its State chosen Administrator raised eyebrows in the corridors of corporate morality but was still trampled down just like the acceptance of its former legal person Mr Manikai of Dube, Manikai and Hwacha to become lawyer of SMM under the so called ‘Reconstruction’ mechanism.

On the issue of externalisation and State indebtedness, Government appointed investigators and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe found no evidence of state indebtedness and no proof of wrong doing in SMM despite the fact that Chinamasa said the following:

“I have already alluded to my earlier responses, as at the 6th September 2004, when I issued the Reconstruction Order, SMM Holdings was indebted to the State in the sum of Z$115 billion between that date and April 2005.”

RBZ Governor, Gideon Gono, in his submissions to the late President Robert Mugabe, refuted SMM’ State indebtedness saying “Based on information available, the Bank has also tested the veracity of the declaration of SMM as “an Insolvent State-Indebted Company” upon which the Reconstruction Law was created and applied….

…Your Excellency, at law the above SMM liabilities at the time the Reconstruction Order was instituted did not qualify as state loans to SMM.”

Gono quashed and castigated the Reconstruction approach in the SMM issue and pleaded with former President Mugabe to reconsider it because of its negative consequences on the image of the country and on attracting investment.

More-so, an executive summary of the final report on the findings of an investigation into the affairs of SMM which was done by the Investigator, Assistant Commissioner, Mr. S. Mangoma etal cleared SMM of wrong doing by stating the following:

“We have established that there is no connection between the acquisition of SMM and the guarantees granted to SMM.  The guarantees were used to convert expensive short-term facilities into a medium term loan. 

The facility was structured and negotiated by SMM’s financial advisors, First Merchant Bank (FMB).

The acquisition of SMM was not guaranteed by the government rather it was a leveraged buy-out in which the assets of SMM were used to acquire the shares in its holding company under an arrangement approved by the RBZ.”

In all this, with a deliberate keen interest in the SMM reconstruction drama and an analysis of the paper trail thereof, one can easily that the whole process was a fallacy.

It was just an interesting story told to the gullible masses while their attention was being diverted from the heist that was happening just like was also confirmed Professor Jonathan Moyo, a former Minister in the Zimbabwe government.

In a twitter conversation with Mutumwa Mawere, Professor Moyo said “I must admit that I was a bit green on legal matters when Mnangagwa & Patrick Chinamasa came up with the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act (Cap24:27) in 2004. When I look back &recall how they did it, its very clear they were targeting Mawere personally!

I am a witness to the fact that Mnangagwa and Chinamasa supervised the uthorship of the Reconstruction of State-Indebted and Insolvent Comoanies in 2004!”

He further went on to say that “Zimbabwe needs a proper truth-telling process with judicial outcomes underwritten by the international community at the regional or continental level. From what I know about the SMM saga, whose utility would be lost if too much is said here, the State owes you mega compensation.” Professor Moyo tweeted to Mawere

Continue Reading

Editorial

The Curse of Entrepreneurship in Africa: If You Can’t Be Politically Tamed, You Must Be Prepared To Walk On Thorns

Brian Kazungu

Published

on

Brian Kazungu, 03/04/2021

In a continent that desperately needs investment for it to outdo is its poor governance induced perennial ‘curse’ of poverty, you would assume that anyone who stands on the feet of his brains in the pursuit of entrepreneurship is welcome but it proves otherwise in this ‘cradle of mankind’.

Africans have for a long time been wreathing in serious but avoidable economic pain because of the chocking, toxic and primitive manner in which its politics have been similarly administered by different ethnicities who run the affairs of mankind in the world largest continent.

While divinely endowed with vast expanses of precious minerals and arable land that can make it the global financial habitat for entrepreneurs, Africa’s economic reality is pathetic, deplorable and quite often heart-breaking even to some die-hard hopefuls.

The majority of its forward thinking citizens would rather risk lives to go and settle abroad in the midst of life darkening xenophobia, racism and human trafficking rather than to try and become the candles of light in their own motherland because of unproductive political heavy-handedness.

Corruption, cronyism and poor governance seems to have become established as the operating system that runs the ‘software’ of Africa’s political machinery which tramples on not only the basic human rights of its people but even on their hopes, dreams and abilities.

One such tragic story is that of Zimbabwean businessman, Fred Mutanda who is part of one of the continent’s notable pharmaceutical businesses, Caps Pharmaceuticals.

In one of the discussions that I have had with him, I came to know that over the years, Fred has endured and survived attempted hostile business take-overs, incarceration, defamation and blackmail which demands a strong heart for one to wish to live and face another day.

Recently, his company had to file an urgent court application seeking to nullify the appointment of the newly government chosen directors from taking any action on behalf of or from being involved in the running of Caps Pvt Ltd.

While commenting on that development, Fred, the majority shareholder in Caps Pharmaceutical Trust said that “the government doesn’t think the constitution applies to it since it just takes it as a piece of paper and considers itself to be above the law”.

His run-ins with the government when it comes to managing his business empire has been very protracted with the government losing several legal battles usually at the expenses of politically naïve and vulnerable tax payers who lack a say in how their own government is managed.

Recently, I sought his comment on an issue in which he was accused of externalising intellectual property in relation to a formula for a pharmaceutical product under the Caps brand.

My curiosity was centred on the circumstances under which intellectual property can be traded and monetized since I am part of the Connections2Communities (C2C) Corporate Literacy initiative.

More-so, I wanted to understand the circumstances under which such property can be under the direct supervision and intervention by the government to such an extent where he could be arrested for what I considered to be private commercial property.

Mutanda refuted any element of wrong doing regarding the intellectual property issue and revealed that even though it is subject to various Acts of the Law, he did not in any way violate the related legal provisions.

“Yes, Government has oversight through the legislation. Industrial Designs Act [Chapter 26:02] Patent Acts [Chapter 26:03] Trade Marks Act [Chapter 26:04] Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act [Chapter 26:05] Intellectual Property Tribunal Act [Chapter 26:08] and the Medicines and Allied Substances Control Act [Chapter 15:03] but I didn’t not violate any of those statutes.

He also further revealed that the charge for externalisation of intellectual property was unfortunately levelled against him as an attempt to replace the theft and fraud charge which he was initially accused of but which could not be substantiated in the court of law.

With the government basing on ‘proof’ that was surprisingly not even submitted to the courts, Mutanda said that he was accused of withdrawing considerable amounts of money from CBZ and Stanbic banks, yet he was not even a signatory of the bank accounts in question.

“It wasn’t my account. It was a company account, of which I was not even a signatory.” Mutanda narrated.

He greatly expressed dismay on the fact that he was initially wrongly charged for theft and fraud only for the charge to be changed to another wrongful accusation of externalisation even though the circumstances of the alleged crime were still the same.

 The soft spoken business tycoon said that he was left with no option but to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court in order to safeguard his rights even in the face of political persecution.

While using the Williams and Anor versus Msipha N.O and Ors SC 22/10 judgement, the judge said “in my view, after hearing submissions by the parties, the learned magistrate should have determined whether the facts alleged by the State constituted an offence or not.

Failure to make that determination could possibly lead to a violation of the constitutional right of the applicant to protection of the law.

In the mentioned case of Williams and Anor versus Msipha N.O and Ors, the court held that putting an accused on trial on facts which even proved do not constitute an offence is a violation of the right to protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution.

As provided for under Section 175 (4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, regarding the violation of among other rights, Mutanda sought to be protected from the right not to be convicted of an act or omission that was not an offence when it took place – Section 70 (1) (k).

In an eye opening but harrowing narrative below, we see how a political hand can strangle the spirit and passion for entrepreneurship in Africa especially if young people can hear and see the terror that their role models grapple with under the oversight of their own kith and kin.

….The matter was reported to Mugabe who instructed Chihuri for police investigation. After investigations, Police wrote a report to Mugabe telling him that there was no fraud, theft or externalizations at CAPS. I don’t know at what point RBZ decided to use the ACC (Anti-Corruption Commission).

I was abducted by the Ant Corruption Commission. After a failed forced disappearance, that’s when they raised the false fraud, theft and externalizations charges. I was taken to the NPA but the DPP refused to charge me.

That’s when I approached the police to report my abduction, false charges and the seizure of my properties.

The police told me that it was a political issue and cannot be involved. That’s when they confirmed that sometime in 2011, Mugabe instructed Chihuri to investigate the case but found no criminal conduct. I remained on remand for 4 years until I approached the Constitutional Court. It’s a long story.

Please also note that the facts were not as per my application but as per the Prosecutor General’s response. How do you alter a charge of fraud claiming that I walked in CBZ and withdrew money to externalization of Intellectual Property?

It just shows you the judiciary is captured. By the way, that judgment was done a few days before the late CJ left office. Then he passed away.”

One commentator who felt aggrieved by Mutanda’s horrific journey in entrepreneurship likened the whole scenario to an animal farm with human actors.

“This is an animal farm yet humans feature prominently in it. This is very sad. It brings to the fore, an abuse of public power that is unprecedented. To be denied freedom on the basis of one charge and only for the charges to be altered after the fact. This is bizarre to say the least.” He expressed himself.

Many entrepreneurs across the African continent have had to endure the terrible political interference that which makes it difficult especially for people of African descent to start and run businesses in their own motherland without being victimized by those with political power.

However, unfortunately, even though it is given less priority as shown by the way how business people are treated, the value of entrepreneurship in Africa cannot be overemphasized and the need for business role models that an African child can look up to and relate with is of critical importance.

It is always disturbing to note that the reality on the ground always seems to prove that entrepreneurship can prove be the corridors of fire which threatens the prospect of better standards of living for the African child if the political machinery falls in wrong hands.

Indeed, it is possible for African governments to ride on the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which declares the Ending Poverty in all its forms as one if its priorities.

This can be done through creating a good environment that inspires the African child to venture into entrepreneurship with a guarantee for the respect of the rule of law and good governance which prohibits political actors to freely borrow political power to settle personal scores.

For example , the World Bank https://bit.ly/351qMyY” estimates that by 2030 up to two-thirds of the global extreme poor may be living in fragile and conflict-affected economies, making it evident that without intensified action, the global poverty goals will not be met.

When you read such reports and then compare with how business people who are prepared to play a part in solving these problems are recklessly treated, you get the impression that Africa still has a long way to go even in just making the lives of its own citizens a little more tolerable.

In a book titled Primitive Politics and The Poverty Machinery, the government is described a set of structures and grouping of people who are mandated with the administration of societal affairs in a given nation or community.

Unfortunately, if you look at Africa at the moment and even through the lenses of history, you would wonder if there are any people who are administering the societal affairs of this continent or they are only political clubs in the champions’ league of destroying the cradle of mankind.

Continue Reading

Africa

iniAfrica

Brian Kazungu

Published

on

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 iniAfrica. an African narrative about ‘The Africa I want‘