fbpx
Connect with us

Uncategorized

The Coca Cola Company (TCCC) caught in a corruption and extortion scandal in Zimbabwe – Part 1

Caroline Du Plessis

Published

on

Advocate Jack Matiza, a member of the Banking on Africa’s Future’s (BOAF) Justice Under Rule of Law’s initiative inspired by s2 of the Constitution said: “When I left Zimbabwe to study law in South Africa, I had no idea of s2 and what the true meaning of the foundational principle inserted in this important principle that speaks to the supremact of the constitution.

Indeed, as citizens we vote but it is rare that we are active in protecting the consequences of our vote from crooked beneficiaries who serve as public office bearers in our governments.

I joined BOAF to be a shaper of the personality of the future of Africa, I want to see in which no one is above the law.

Yhis case is an interesting one in that it involves an alleged fraudulent and organized conspiracy between a then Minister in the late President Mugabe’s government had the audacity to orchestrate a corporate coup involving using public power to divest and deprive during the sanctions era or in September 2004 of the control and management of 26 companies including Schweppes Zimbabwe Limited (SZL), a wholly owned TCCC subsidiary.

In response to Mr. Basildon Pets, another award winning journalist and now a media owner, TCCC’s Kenyan based division’s then Communications Director, Mr. Titus Mutiso stated in a letter dated 20 June 2006 as follows:

Please be pleased to take notice that in this letter, it was represented that COCA-COLA HOLDINGS NETHERLANDS (CCHN) was the holder of the entire SZL issued share capital and this version is contradicted in by TCCC’s other representatives in this scintillating expose of deceit and corruption by TCCC, a quintessential multinational American company, described by Mr. Cornelius Mutates, a member of JUROL, as a global corporate bully that is immune from accountability.

In response to Mr. Peta’s question as to the reasons behind the consequential decision by a company in the name of Coca Cola Central Africa Private Limited (CCCA) and not CCHN being used to notify Fidelity Life Asset Management (FLAM), the Africa Resources Limited (ARL) agent to localize SZL using the ZSE as the platform, on 3 June 2006, Mr. Mutiso categorically stated that the removal of SZL from the Reconstruction was legally granted in January 2006.

No mention was made that SZL and FLAM were not mentioned at all in the Chinamasa notice of 6 September 2004 raising a question of how a non-existent lawful notice could be subsequently be rescinded or removed lawfully.

iIt was CCCA’s representation in the 13:September 2004 represenation to Mr. Solomon Tembo, the Chairman of FLAM, who had hitherto never been involved in relation to the SZL localization and plant recapitalization project, that:

SMM’s reconstruction order was dated 6 September 2004 and the above letter was written and served to FLAM on 13 September 2004.

Notwithstanding the above, Mr. Mutiso represented on behalf of CCECA as follows:

It is not in dispute that the effect of the reconstruction order in relation to SMM was to remove the company from falling within the ambit of the regulation of the Companies Act and place it with the ambit of the hitherto unknown decree that was promulgated by Chinamasa using state of emergency powers under Statutory Instrument No. 187/2004.

Having been removed from the regulation of the Companies Act, a law of general application in relation to juristic entities, CCECA representatives, would have been alive to the reality that since 6 September 2004, SMM and targeted companies ceased to be companies but organs of the government of Zimbabwe.

adv Matiza further stated: “It is bizarre that a company whose control was vested in an Administrator whose Appointing Authority was the Minister of Justice and served on the Minister’s direct pleasure could be regarded as a lawful representative of SMM as a company, a creature of the Companies Act?”

Notwistanding the legal effect of the reconstruction order – that it vested the control and management of the targeted entities in an Administrator appointed without the knowledge and involvement of the judiciary or the courts, Mr. Mutiso shockingly asserted as set out below:

It was CCECA’s version as at 20 June 2006 that no money was paid to the Administrator in relation to the upgrade project.

In PART 2, we will deal with the veracity of the allegations boldly made on behalf of TCCC to the effect that the decision to terminate the SZL project was made outside the four corners of the reconstruction project that Mnangagwa and his November 2017 key coup ally, Chinamasa, played a driving role.

President Mnangagwa in his answering affidavit in the application under Case Number CCZ34/21 asserted boldly that he was the driving force behind the reconstruction of SMM and he was briefed on all the happenings in the matter to leave anyone with any doubt as to where the buck stopped and who was in charge at all material times.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Warning: Undefined variable $user_ID in /home/iniafrica/public_html/wp-content/themes/zox-news/comments.php on line 49

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply