WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2011-04-22 Time: 13:00:03 Posted By: News Poster
By Chris Muronzi
A COURT ruling that saw South Africans of Chinese descent being granted the right to also benefit from Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) deals, citing that they were also discriminated against during the apartheid era has apparently had no effect on Zimbabwe’s proponents of black economic empowerment. A ruling by a South African Court confirmed what South Africans of Chinese descent had been claiming all along; “we are black.”
And they became black and benefitted from BEE deals.
South Africans of Chinese descent had been classified as “coloured” during apartheid and faced discrimination as much as blacks. While Zimbabwe intends that BEE beneficiaries should exclusively be black, the wording of its indigenisation laws actually leaves it more open for people who are not black to claim indigenous status, according to top lawyers – – Nick Willsmer and Sternford Moyo.
Willsmer and Moyo last week brought to the fore some of the problems that lay ahead as President Robert Mugabe and his Empowerment minister Saviour Kasukuwere vigorously push for indigenisation of the economy.
The lawyers said definitions in the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and regulations were so broad that even a Maori could claim to be an indigenous Zimbabwean, and lawfully benefit from indigenisation programmes in Zimbabwe.
Definitions such as “indigenous”, according to the lawyers, are ambiguous and too broad.
For instance, “indigenous Zimbabweans” is according to the lawyers so misleading that a “person who qualifies as an ‘indigenous Zimbabwean’ need not be indigenous nor Zimbabwean.”
Apart from the regulations and act being loosely defined, the lawyers said the piece of legislation was unconstitutional, saying it trampled underfoot fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution such as freedom of association, expression and sanctity of property rights.
But in a country where business leaders are generally prone to political interference, analysts say the constitutionality of the act might never be tested, especially given some rulings relating to property rights and constitutional rights made by the Supreme Court over the years.
Observers say the country’s judicial system is not independent and is sometimes at the mercy of politicians.
As expected, mines executives have refused to talk about the new regulations affecting the industry.
Instead, the executives are meeting government officials behind closed doors to try and dissuade them from wholesale nationalisation of the sector.
Analysts say although the planned indigenisation of the economy is noble, the manner in which government is going about the exercise, casts doubt on the success of the policy.
Judging by recent regulations that compel mining companies to dispose of controlling stakes in mines to the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, companies owned by the government mining group, a government empowerment body and sovereign wealth funds, analysts say Zimbabwe now wants to nationalize mines.
Ambiguous definitions aside, Willsmer says it would be impossible to ensure that a company whose shares are traded daily on a stock exchange is 51% owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.
He said the introduction of official “designated entities” as the recipients of mining interests was in conflict with the “plainly-stated” purpose of the Act – – to empower indigenous Zimbabweans – – arguing official bodies “do not qualify as indigenous.”
Moyo, a senior partner at Scanlen & Holderness, also blasted a clause in the regulations that gives Kasukuwere the discretion to come up with valuations of companies by taking into account the state’s “sovereign rights” to minerals as an attempt to ensure that “little or nothing” was paid for the shares.
He added that the regulations’ provision that Kasukuwere can impose partners on mining companies violated freedom of association protected by Section 21 of the Constitution.
Apart from undermining section 21, the provision could fuel corruption and see Kasukuwere cherry picking the would-be beneficiaries on political and even family basis, analysts say.
Moyo also said freedom of expression would be trampled underfoot should government compel companies to submit empowerment plans.
He said: “Section 20 of the constitution enshrines freedom of expression. That freedom includes the right not to communicate if one does not wish to do so. The Constitution does not, therefore, provide for submission of empowerment plans. Consequently, the duty to produce a plan within 45 days appears to be challengeable.”
Analysts said there is need to have clear definitions in the act and regulations to spell out the would-be beneficiaries, amid concerns that the policy is a veiled nationalisation plan, particularly in the mining sector.
Original Source: 
Original date published: 20 April 2011
Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201104220594.html?viewall=1