Newsday

Editorial

29th April 2014

THE landmark sweeping changes made by Primary and Secondary Education minister Lazarus Dokora over the past few months cannot go unchallenged.

The new policy directives are likely to reverse gains made during the era of his predecessor David Coltart.

Despite being a non-educationist, Coltart literally resurrected the sector, as when Education minister between 2009 and 2013, he introduced a raft of measures which included direct foreign funding and mass provision of learning materials into the education sector.

The MDC minister also religiously defended the introduction of teachers’ incentives and paid-for extra lessons as some of the measures to incentivise the poorly-paid teachers.

However, his former subordinate and Zanu PF successor Dokora seems to have embarked on a mission to reverse all that for no apparent reason.

Could it be another Zanu PF populist policy directive?

A few weeks before last year’s harmonised elections, Local Government minister Ignatius Chombo made a similar policy directive when he ordered all local authorities to write off ratepayers’ unpaid bills. The results of that order are clear for all who care to see the poor service delivery and state of disrepair of infrastructure at local authorities.

One wonders as to who such policy directives are meant to benefit. It’s true Coltart’s measures had a net effect of imposing an additional financial burden on the already-overburdened parents. But the same parents Dokora is trying to protect seemed comfortable with that extra expense as long as it guaranteed their children better results.

What makes the whole circus more astounding is the fact that the policy directives are made and announced without prior consultation with key stakeholders – teachers’ unions, parents’ associations and other more experienced educationists.

Granted, some of the extra lessons and teachers’ incentives had given root to a culture of laziness and greed, but the good thing at the end of the day is these measures had greatly enhanced the country’s pass rates at all levels and economically empowered the teachers.

What Dokora should have done was to consult widely and then gradually remove the extra financial burden on parents in tandem with an equal injection of capital into the sector by government and the private sector.

It’s no secret that Dokora’s wholesale ban on teachers’ incentives and paid extra lessons will undermine Zimbabwe’s reputation as a leading education provider in Africa.

Results of last year’s Zimsec “O” Level results are sure proof to the fact that with additional incentives, teachers can go an extra mile and produce better results.

Of the 285 260 candidates who sat for Zimsec “O” Level examinations, 36 031 candidates passed five subjects and above with a Grade C or better, translating to a 20,72% pass rate.  This is a 2,32 percentage points increase on the 18,4% recorded in 2012.

Although the results were still below par, they compared well with the results achieved by those who sat for the public examinations for the past two decades or so.

As things stand now, the country stands assured a much lower pass rate this year given the withdrawal of these incentives. This is especially so considering that the massive salary hike that the teachers were expecting this year has remained pie in the sky.

BBC News Africa

By Andrew Harding

29th April 2014

It is a story with some of the qualities of a Greek tragedy.

A brave warrior rallies his countrymen to try to oust an unjust king.

For years they struggle, enduring great hardship and showing true courage.

Then one day the king – also weakened by the fight – offers a truce, and invites his enemy to join him in his palace.

Warily, the warrior joins forces with his nemesis.

As the years go by the warrior begins to enjoy palace life.

When he finally makes another move to oust the king, he discovers that many of his own supporters have abandoned him. He is cast out of the palace.

Soon afterwards, the warrior’s closest aides – those who had always warned him against the alliance – draw their knives and stab him.

Welcome – with a little artistic license and apologies to Sophocles – to the troubled world of Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and its veteran leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, who was turfed out of his position last week amid allegations of corruption, abuse of office, and weak leadership.

“Mr Tsvangirai has been suspended,” one of those wielding the knife, Elton Mangoma, told me by phone.

“I think he’ll come to his senses and realise it’s futile to carry on. He has nowhere else to go,” said Mr Mangoma, who implied that Mr Tsvangirai’s taste for “big man politics” and his reluctance to step down, had turned him into a copy of the man he’s fought so long against – President Mugabe.

But Mr Tsvangirai is not going quietly.

In language that would appear to rule out all future compromise , he has now accused his old allies – including the formidable Tendai Biti, who was also beaten and charged with treason by Mr Mugabe’s forces – of working with Zanu-PF to “betray the people”.

Morgan Tsvangirai accused Tendai Biti of being used by state security agents

Mr Tsvangirai described Mr Biti as a treacherous hypocrite and an opportunist who “believes in nothing” and would now be dismissed from the party with eight other rebels.

How did things get this nasty?

Few would question Mr Tsvangirai’s courage as an opposition leader in the bruising years before his controversial alliance with Mr Mugabe.

But the 2008 deal that saw the MDC brought into a power-sharing government, following an election campaign violently disrupted by Zanu-PF, was always going to be a risky move.

‘Tyranny’

Mr Tsvangirai tried to sell it as a Mandela-esque gesture towards national reconciliation.

It was a much grubbier affair than that.

Amid the squabbling, life is getting tougher for many Zimbabweans

The deal did help revive Zimbabwe’s crumbling economy – thanks to Mr Biti’s role as finance minister – and put an end to the bloodshed, but Mr Tsvangirai himself soon became a largely symbolic figure, mocked for his colourful private life, his expensive house, and his golfing; and consistently outmanoeuvred by Mr Mugabe.

Then came last year’s election.

While the MDC and most western nations believed Mr Mugabe rigged the results to win once again, it was also clear that the opposition had lost headway.

“There’s no point in pretending you are strong when you are very weak,” said Mr Mangoma, arguing that the party needed fresh blood and fresh ideas in order to prepare itself “to remove the Zanu-PF dictatorship” at the next election in 2018.

This is not the first time that the MDC has split.

Morgan Tsvangirai (l) has been arrested and beaten in his time as MDC leader

Senator David Coltart joined a 2005 breakaway group, and still bemoans “the deeply rooted… culture… whereby a party starts to reflect the traits of the tyranny it opposes”.

Mr Coltart, now a member of the MDC faction under the leadership of Professor Welshman Ncube, blames a lot of the problems on the “enormous pressures brought to bear on leaders” during the fight against Mr Mugabe.

“The sheer nervous stress caused by a struggle like that causes people to fall apart, never mind political parties.”

There is little doubt that the new split will only benefit President Mugabe, now aged 90, and his Zanu-PF, who are involved in their own succession battles.

Mr Coltart says he has “no doubt” that the MDC’s troubles have been fuelled, once again, by state security operatives.

But his chief concern is that Zimbabwe’s two main parties are now preoccupied with internal wrangling at a time when the country faces huge new pressures – with business confidence eroded, factories closing, tax revenues down, and a deflationary spiral choking the economy.

“I was hoping Morgan Tsvangirai would play the role of a political ‘grandfather’ and use his influence to facilitate the emergence of a more inclusive alliance of democratic forces,” said Mr Coltart.

That seems unlikely now.

Bulawayo24News

By Simon Allison

28th April 2014

Pity Morgan Tsvangirai. The veteran Zimbabwean opposition leader is facing a little opposition of his own, and he’s not coping too well. His party looks certain to split yet again, destroying in the process one of the few remaining challenges to uninterrupted Zanu-PF rule. Mugabe is loving it. Tsvangirai, on the other hand, looks weaker than ever. 

There was a time, not too long ago, when Morgan Tsvangirai personified everything that was good about Zimbabwe. He was tenacious, fearless and determined to challenge the authoritarian one-party state that Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF was intent on creating. He rallied the masses, campaigned vociferously, stood firm in the face of threats and intimidation and vicious personal attacks. He represented a Zimbabwe that refused to be bowed into submission; one that knew the difference between right and wrong, between democracy and kleptocracy. He wasn’t just the leader of the opposition; in many ways, he was the opposition, and he gave Zanu-PF a serious run for their ill-gotten money.

In fact, he didn’t just scare the ruling party, he beat them fair and square in the first round of those 2008 elections. Zimbabweans wanted change. They wanted Tsvangirai.

For the veteran opposition leader, those heady days – days when the opposition was a genuine force, when the end of Mugabe’s reign seemed to be within touching distance – are long behind him.

We all know what happened next. Mugabe and his Zanu-PF thugs, terrified of losing their empire, unleashed a carefully targeted anarchy at anyone who showed the slightest sign of dissent. Many of Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) members were killed; more were beaten; still more were locked up on spurious charges. The same was true for all opposition parties.

Unable to cope with the onslaught, the MDC made a deal with the devil himself, agreeing to join a unity government in which Zanu-PF held all the big cards (i.e. control of the police and security forces, as well as the presidency). Tsvangirai was relegated to the hastily-created and largely ceremonial role of Prime Minister, in which he spent five years trying to make nice with Mugabe. To no avail; he was given little say in the running of government, often left out altogether of cabinet meetings.

In this time, he cut a strangely muted, inconsequential figure. He seemed to have lost the fire in his belly. Power had tamed him. While other opposition figures were making real headway in government (think Tendai Biti’s miraculous economic reforms as minister of finance, or David Coltart’s vital resuscitation of the country’s failing schools), Tsvangirai was more often in the headlines for his messy love life, or for his obvious affection for the trappings of office.

By the time the next elections rolled around, in July 2013, Tsvangirai had lost much of his appeal. The opposition, led by his faction of the MDC, fared poorly. Even though widespread reports suggest that there was some element of vote-rigging from Zanu-PF, it probably wasn’t necessary; voters returned to Mugabe’s fold in droves, giving him undiluted control once again.

It was a failure of epic proportions for Zimbabwe’s opposition – and specifically for the man who leads it. Now, Tsvangirai is facing the consequences.

Last week, a significant faction within the MDC-T declared that they had unilaterally suspended Morgan Tsvangirai as party leader. The statement released in support of this position was damning. In it, Tsvangirai stood accused of stifling dissent, ignoring party structures, corruption, rigging internal elections, and creating his own cult of personality. He was responsible, they concluded, for “the complete Zanufication” of the party.

The statement was signed by none other than Tendai Biti, for years Tsvangirai’s most loyal lieutenant, with the support of 136 MDC-T Guardian Council members. Not enough to form a quorum, admittedly, but more than enough to explode the myth of an opposition party united for Zimbabwe and against continued Zanu-PF rule.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Tsvangirai has faced internal dissent. The existence of several other parties claiming the MDC name, most notably the one led by Welshman Ncube, attests to this. But this time it’s different.

For one thing, Tsvangirai himself is much weaker. Although he still commands considerable support, he no longer has national appeal beyond his core constituency – as the last election results showed so clearly. He’s also compromised by his time in office; no one can forget in a hurry all the hugs, handshakes and smiles with Mugabe, as necessary as those may have been at the time. Worse for Tsvangirai, there is at least a morsel of truth in the accusations against him. In particular, he is damned by his decidedly Mugabe-esque maneuver of altering the MDC constitution to allow himself to run for a third term. The last thing Zimbabwe needs is another leader who doesn’t know when to leave office.

For another, Zimbabwe’s opposition is particularly vulnerable at the moment. It too has been compromised, and found wanting by voters. Disorganised and divided, it is incapable of providing a genuine check on the government. Instead, it serves as a fig leaf which allows Zanu-PF to extol the virtues of Zimbabwean democracy while effectively enforcing a one-party state. In addition, there is an argument to be made that a weak, divided opposition is worse than no opposition at all, because it prevents other, more effective opponents of the regime from emerging.

Tsvangirai has, of course, vehemently denied the charges against him, likening his “suspension” to an attempted coup. He maintains that he is still the party leader, and that the dissenters do not have the authority or the numbers to enforce their edict.

Perhaps, though, if Tsvangirai cares as much about his country as he says he does, he should take their concerns to heart. Truth is, Tsvangirai has had has his chance to take on Mugabe, and he’s lost. The longer he remains in office, the happier Mugabe will be, secure in the knowledge that Tsvangirai’s combative style and diminishing influence will be unable to unify the opposition against him. Zanu-PF will never be defeated by an MDC faction.

The only chance the opposition has of successfully challenging the ruling party is to recognize that there is strength in numbers, and strength in unity. Petty political differences must be set aside in pursuit of the greater good. Morgan Tsvangirai has taken his eye off the prize, confusing his own future with Zimbabwe’s – that’s why he must go, to make space for a leader who will put Zimbabwe first. 

BBC News Africa

26th April 2014

Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change says it is suspending its leader Morgan Tsvangirai, amid deepening divisions in its ranks.

A statement issued by the party after a meeting in Harare accused him of a “remarkable failure of leadership”.

It also said he had deviated from the party’s democratic founding principles.

Mr Tsvangirai lost a third election challenge to veteran President Robert Mugabe in 2013 and defied calls to stand down after this defeat.

The MDC leadership is reported to have been riven with in-fighting for months since then.

A BBC reporter in Zimbabwe says the MDC appears to be heading for a split that will only strengthen Mr Mugabe’s hold on power.

Several other senior party figures were also reported to have been suspended at Saturday’s meeting, and some suspended members to have been reinstated.

Tensions brewing

The MDC statement said the party had been “transformed into a fiefdom of the leader” under Mr Tsvangirai. It also accused him of sponsoring a culture of violence against MDC members not aligned with him.

MDC Secretary General Tendai Biti, who spoke to journalists after the meeting, said Mr Tsvangirai and some other senior officials had “betrayed” the MDC’s struggle, AFP reported.

But an MDC spokesperson, Douglas Mwonzora, maintained that Mr Tsvangirai remained the MDC’s legitimate leader.

“This was not a national council meeting,” he told AFP.

David Coltart, a founding member of the MDC, told the BBC that Mr Tsvangirai’s suspension – although not unexpected – was a bad thing for democracy in Zimbabwe.

“I’m not surprised this has happened because tensions have been brewing for quite a long time.

“But I am concerned about this. What we need in the opposition is consolidation, not further splitting. I had hoped that Tsvangirai would play the role of an elder statesman or political grandfather to oversea the formation of a broad alliance of democratic forces.

“Morgan Tsvangirai, for whatever can be levelled against him, remains a very popular figure and we really do need him as part of the overall democratic forces,” Mr Coltart said. “The danger is that the opposition vote will continue to be split allowing ZANU PF to win by default.”

From 2009-2013 Mr Tsvangirai served as prime minister in a fragile power-sharing government, with Mr Mugabe remaining Zimbabwe’s president.

That unity government ended with the elections in July 2013.

Mr Mugabe’s party won a huge majority in the vote, which Mr Tsvangirai dismissed as fraudulent.

His defeat was a major setback for a man who for many years posed the only credible challenge to President Mugabe.

The Herald

26th April 2014

By Felex Share Herald Reporter

Government has banned payment of incentives to teachers by parents and guardians. This is likely to put Government on a collision course with teachers, whose union leaders said they were not consulted. Incentives were formalised in 2009 by then Education, Sport, Arts and Culture Minister David Coltart to motivate teachers to work despite low salaries.

They, however, became a divisive issue as they only worked in a small proportion of schools, mainly in urban areas where parents could afford to pay teachers extra.

Some teachers in rural areas never received incentives from 2009, while there were clashes between school heads and educators who said the money was being abused and not reaching the latter.

Primary and Secondary Education Minister Lazarus Dokora on Tuesday confirmed the scrapping of incentives on the sidelines of the 33rd Zimbabwe Teachers Association conference in Harare.

He said while incentives had played a critical role at a critical juncture, it was time for them to go.

“There is no justification for their payment. Their payment is not consistent with the educational values they are meant to be servicing,” he said.

Minister Dokora earlier told delegates that a circular outlawing incentives had been sent to all schools.

Minister Dokora recently told The Herald that the ministry held wide-ranging consultations on the effects of incentives on quality.

But Zimta chief executive Mr Sifiso Ndlovu said Government had not consulted them and educators would not recognise the circular.

“I have not gone through that circular but this reveals that the ministry is not transparent and intellectually honest.

“As stakeholders we should have been a participant.

“In the absence of that and as representatives of teachers, we will continue to deny the existence of that circular until we have a delivery of that in our hands as a union.

“We still hold on the 2009 circular number 5 that legalised incentives,” he said.

Teachers’ unions say the long-term solution is to improve conditions of service.

The Herald

16th April 2014

By Robson Sharuko Senior Sports Editor
A “CONTROVERSIAL” multi-million dollar bailout package, attached with strings to strip the Zimbabwe Cricket leadership of all their powers and sub-contract the sport’s management portfolio to an Administrator who would be spoon-fed with monthly handouts to run the game for three years, has been rejected by the domestic leaders.

The US$16 million bailout, which included a US$10.8 million liquidation of the ZC bank loans with MetBank and NMB Bank, and a monthly “drip feed” of US$450 000 into the cricket body from the end of this month to April 2016, had been put together by the commercial arm of the International Cricket Council.

It was set to be approved at the ICC Development (International) Ltd Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee meeting in Dubai last week, if the ZC leaders had consented, and would have transferred the administration of the game into the hands of an Administrator, who would be paid US$175 000 per annum, for the next three years.

But the ZC chiefs rejected the deal, uncomfortable with what they felt was tantamount to a boardroom coup being orchestrated with the input of domestic elements who have been battling to overthrow their leadership for more than a decade now, and chose to find alternative means of funding their operations.

ZC chairman, Peter Chingoka, and deputy chairman, Wilson Manase, attended the meeting in Dubai.

Sources said the Administrator, who had been earmarked to take over the running of the game in this country is former ZC Managing Director, Dave Ellman-Brown, a Sports Commissioner who has been viewed by the game’s leaders with suspicion since publicly criticising them in the international media platforms in the past.

Former Sports Minister, David Coltart, who appointed Ellman-Brown onto the Sports Commission board, is a severe critic of the ZC leadership.

The ICC projects that ZC will make about US$34.5 million between now and April 2016 with US$8.6 million coming from the ICC World Twenty20 held in Bangladesh last month, US$16.3 million coming from the ICC Cricket World Cup in Australia and New Zealand next year and US$8.6 million coming from the ICC World Twenty20 in 2016.

Two proposed Indian home tours are expected to generate a further US$7 million from television rights receipts while other tours will chew about US$6 million which will leave ZC with income, after taking care of their losses of US$34.5 million.

At its meeting in January this year, the F&CA tabled an application from ZC for a loan of US$19 million, who already owe the ICC US$5.3 million, and the loan was not approved with the board directing ICC chief executive, Dave Richardson, and Chief Financial Officer, Faisal Hasnain, to work with the local cricket organisation with a view to:

a) Ensuring that ZC is in a position to send its team to compete in the ICC WT20 2014 event in Bangladesh;
b) Finding a way for ZC to feasibly “trade” itself out of the financial position in which it currently finds itself.

And, with these objectives in mind, the ICC chief executive and chief financial officer were authorised to:
– Provide ZC with a loan of up to US$2.5 million (repayable from the ICC CWC 2015 distributions) to pay outstanding salaries and all necessary expenses to ensure that the Zimbabwe team is adequately prepared for and able to compete in the ICC  WT20 2014

– Work with ZC to reduce its existing cost base and bank liabilities and maximise revenues

– Revise the KPMG prepared business plan, taking into account the further cost reductions, the potential restructuring of ZC’s bank loans and increased revenues for presentations to the F&CA and the IDI Board at the next meeting in April.

The ICC commercial wing noted that other than the outstanding ICC loans, ZC were exposed to other liabilities that stood at US$16.3 million in bank loans although negotiations could be done for a reduction of the actual amount that could be repaid to the banks.

A bailout package was then structured, after Richardson and Hasnain visited Zimbabwe this year, where the ICC would advance the ZC US$10.8 million which would go towards the final settlement of the revised debts owed to the banks in the event that payment was effected within an agreed period.

In return the ICC would immediately recover US$8.6 million of that amount by withholding the ZC’s share from the World Twenty20 2014 tournament.

“The ICC would then need to ‘drip feed’ ZC US$450k per month from April 2014 until the conclusion of the ICC CWC in April 2015 (and) this should be sufficient to meet ZC’s reduced annual operating costs,” the bailout document read.

“ZC would operate on the basis of cash receipts and payments. There will be no capital expenditure (except on small items such as office equipment and computers etc) until the ICC loan is fully repaid.

“This will add a further exposure to the ICC of US$5.4m (i.e. US$450k per month x 12 months) which, when added to the post-WT20 exposure of US$10m will bring the total exposure to the ICC, at the conclusion of the ICC CWC 2015, to around US$16m (including interest).

“Since ZC is due US$16.3m from the ICC CWC 2015, it is proposed that would be offset against the loan immediately after the CWC. Any positive balance will be retained by ZC, to be offset against the future ‘drip feed’ monthly payments which would, thereafter, continue for a further year until April 2016.

“Following the conclusion of the ICC WT20 2016, it is proposed that the ‘drip feed’ monthly payments would cease and the total advanced would be recovered by the ICC in full, with no further ICC loan payments to be advanced.

“It is anticipated that at that point in time, ZC would have achieved a positive equity status of approximately US$4m (which compares favourably with its existing US$14m negative equity).”

But it’s the strings, attached to this bailout package, which didn’t go down well with the ZC leaders as the ICC suggested that bailout would only be approved on the following conditions:

ZC agreeing to the appointment of an ‘Administrator’ to oversee the management of the ZC business for the next three years. It is proposed that such a person be appointed as the de-facto CEO of ZC, reporting directly, however, to the ICC’s F&CA or to the ICC CEO.

Such a person would need to understand the cricket business, be strong enough to remain independent of the different political factions within ZC, capable of negotiating player, broadcaster, sponsor and supplier contracts and have the business and management skills to run an extremely tight and financially efficient organisation, including ability to ‘hire and fire’.

Management (ICC CEO and FCO) has a few potential candidates in mind for the ‘Administrator’ position, details of which will be provided at the meeting (in Dubai). The costs of such a person (estimated at approximately US$175 000 per annum, KPMG quoted a cost of US$10 125 per month for one of its senior managers to be seconded to ZC for this purpose), would be paid for by ZC as one of the agreed operating expenses.

The authority of the current ZC board during the interim management structure needs to be considered. An interim advisory board may be considered necessary.
The appointment if a Top Four auditing firm to replace ZC’s auditors (currently Ruzengwe & Co). ZC has already agreed to this for the audit of the 2014 accounts onwards.

Direct payments by the ICC into a designated bank account with one of the permanent signatories on all payments being the Administrator.
The ICC loan to be the only loan (or overdraft facility) taken by ZC during the next three-year period.

The three-year business plan to be effectively the next three-year budget for ZC.

Daily Maverick

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

By Simon Allison

7 April 2014

After being pummeled in the last election, and riven with infighting and recrimination in the months since, Zimbabwe’s political opposition is at its lowest ebb in a decade. SIMON ALLISON asks the obvious question: if not Zanu, then who? The answer makes for disheartening reading – unless your name’s Robert Mugabe, and you’ve got a country you want to keep running.

It wasn’t just losing last year’s election that dealt a knock-out blow to Zimbabwe’s main opposition groups, in particular Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change faction (MDC-T); it was how the election was lost, by such a wide margin that even if Zanu-PF had rigged the elections – and we’re not saying they did, although we have our suspicions – it did not need to.

Look at it this way: despite everything that Robert Mugabe has done, despite the economic calamities he has presided over and the steady erosion of basic rights he has legislated, a majority of Zimbabweans would rather have Mugabe and his henchmen in charge than trust in any of the alternatives.

For Morgan Tsvangirai, this realisation must be a particularly bitter pill. The veteran opposition leader, now 62, came as close as anyone has to unseating Mugabe from his presidential throne in those disputed elections in 2008. But by hook and by crook, Mugabe clung on to power, forcing Tsvangirai into an unhappy power-sharing arrangement that kept real power in Zanu-PF hands. This proved to be Tsvangirai’s eventual undoing: tainted by his association with Mugabe, and perhaps distracted by affairs of state (not to mention affairs of the heart – Tsvangirai’s messy love life generated huge publicity, almost all of it negative), Tsvangirai and his party drifted into the 2013 elections, where they were walloped by a well-organised and highly-motivated Zanu-PF.

The other main MDC faction, led by Welshman Ncube, fared just as poorly; even losing out to the MDC-T in its traditional Bulawayo stronghold.

Since the election, things have gone from bad to worse for the opposition. MDC-Ncube has been weakened by several high-profile defections, as has MDC-99, yet another MDC faction. Meanwhile, Tsvangirai has been battling an internal revolt as a group of disgruntled party members seek to replace him. So far, he’s held on to power, but the rebel group is getting larger and louder with every passing week.

“Those opposed to ZANU PF are in disarray,” concluded David Coltart, a former MDC-Ncube senator and education minister in the government of national unity. “There are a plethora of opposition parties, many of whom have similar policies and it appears the only reason for them all is because of the ‘big man syndrome’. There is very little willingness amongst opposition leaders to take a subordinate role in the national interest and that has resulted in far too many parties and the resultant splitting of the vote. However, it would be wrong to say that those opposed to Zanu-PF tyranny have lost all fight. Zimbabwe is in such a dreadful state that there is more reason than ever for opposition to Zanu-PF rule and there are plenty with a lot of fight left in them.”

Coltart’s attempt at optimism is laudable, but the truth is that the chaos in the opposition ranks is simply playing into Zanu-PF hands. “The net effect of what is happening in the opposition ranks is that voters are fast losing confidence in its ability to put up a strong front to Zanu-PF in 2018,” said Ray Ndlovu, a Zimbabwean journalist who writes for the Mail & Guardian and Business Day. Ndlovu points out that the chaos within the opposition ranks allows the ruling party to get away with poor governance and service delivery, as it is not being effectively challenged. “It therefore is important that the opposition buries the hatchet and seriously looks into some form of unity pact–as this is a matter of survival, not only for the individual opposition political parties but for the greater good of opposition politics in Zimbabwe.”

For Ndlovu, Tsvangirai remains a pivotal figure. “I don’t think this is the end for Morgan Tsvangirai. He still enjoys unmatched support from the grassroots and any pretenders to the throne will have to grapple with winning over the grassroots, who at the end of the day are the ones who cast the vote. The struggles in the MDC are taking place at the upper levels of the party and not at the grassroots and this is Tsvangirai’s saving grace, he can go back to his supporters and say his version of events and they buy into that and continue supporting him.”

Despite his residual support, holding on to Tsvangirai would probably be a mistake. For all his undoubted bravery and commitment to the cause, he has proven himself over the years to be a divisive figure, and not immune to the temptations of power (he altered his party’s constitution to give himself a third term as its head – not exactly a promising sign). He’s also shown he’s out of fresh ideas. Whatever he is saying, it’s clearly not resonating with voters any more.

But if Tsvangirai must stay – and let’s be honest, he doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere – Zimbabweans opposed to Mugabe should learn from the example of Nigeria, where a new coalition of prominent opposition figures is putting up a serious challenge to President Goodluck Jonathan’s ruling People’s Democratic Party. Realising no one can defeat the PDP on their own, Nigeria’s opposition has adopted a big tent approach – and, provided it can keep all those ‘big men’ happy and untangle all their conflicting policies, it has a real chance of upsetting Jonathan’s 2015 re-election bid.

This approach requires real sacrifice and compromise on behalf of opposition leaders. Do Zimbabwe’s current crop have what it takes to put aside their differences for the greater good? Or, come 2018, will Zimbabweans still choose the familiar faults of Zanu-PF over the infighting and unpredictability of the opposition?

The Herald

4th March 2014

By Tristan Holme and Liam Brickhill

A PROTEST over salaries by Zimbabwe’s cricketers has again brought to the fore Zimbabwe Cricket’s financial problems, which have continued despite at least US$9 million being loaned by the ICC to the board.
ESPNcricinfo can reveal that one reason for the financial mess is that ZC’s top leadership apparently used a $6 million loan from the ICC to enrich a bank on whose board they sit and ignored a key condition of the loan.

The issue also raises an apparent conflict of interest: ZC chairman Peter Chingoka, vice-chairman Wilson Manase and former managing director Ozias Bvute all sit on the board of Metbank, one of Zimbabwe’s leading banks.

While Chingoka is a non-executive director on the Metbank board, Manase is chairman of the board and Bvute is a major shareholder in the institution.

ZC said the main purpose for the ICC loan was to service the current facilities with local banks so that it could borrow again but the plan was upset by the status of the financial market.

Chingoka also said it was “wrong and malicious” to allege loss of money when Metbank themselves were owed the most amount of money. The ICC, meanwhile, has declined to respond to specific questions.

Recent effects of that debt have been public knowledge: last September, ZC called off a proposed visit by Sri Lanka on financial grounds and the current domestic season was delayed by two months after players went on strike over unpaid wages. That matter raised its head again in negotiations over payments for the upcoming World Twenty20, which have been deadlocked but due to resume on March 3.

ESPNcricinfo has learnt that from 2009, ZC took out US dollar loans from Metbank at interest rates of more than 20% — and possibly as high as 24% — despite knowing the ICC could arrange loans at international interest rates far below those that Metbank was offering.

In December 2011, after learning of ZC’s high-interest loans from Metbank, the ICC loaned the cricket board $6 million with one rider: the money should be used to immediately retire ZC’s existing debt. Instead ZC deposited the money in a non-interest-bearing account with Metbank for more than five months.

Metbank would have benefited from the interest accruing on their high-interest loan to ZC, as well as from having ZC’s money in the non-interest-bearing account available to loan to third parties. ZC would, by the same deal, have lost out twice.  The ICC loan was received by ZC on December 14, 2011; on January 18, 2012, ZC repaid $75,000 to Premier Bank, and another $50,000 to the same institution on March 15.

It then repaid $1,758,211 to Interfin Bank on April 23, 2012 and $829,167 to FBC Bank on May 3.

It was not until May 25 that $3,287,623 was repaid to Metbank. With that amount sitting in a non-interest-bearing account for five months and 11 days, Metbank could have earned in the region of $300,000 by loaning it out to third parties at an interest rate of 20%. ZC would have paid around the same amount in interest on its loan from Metbank, which was attracting interest of more than 20% over that time period. Metbank could therefore have benefited by more than $600,000 from the two effects.

The knock-on effect of those decisions was that ZC’s debt spiral continued, to the extent that the board had to seek a second ICC loan last month, worth $3m, so that it could pay the money owed to its contracted players, umpires, scorers and other employees.

The ICC knew about these indiscretions since at least March 2013, but did not take any action against the individuals involved.

However, its latest loan came with the condition that ZC move its principal accounts away from Metbank, which it has now done.

Media reports suggest the ICC is preparing to pay off ZC’s debts to Metbank; that money will then be deducted from ZC’s annual benefits from the ICC, which could amount to $25m over the next three years. The malaise in Zimbabwe Cricket’s finances has been a feature of the last decade.

When Bvute took over the organisation’s reins following Vince Hogg’s resignation in 2004, ZC was $10 million in the black. The 2012 audit of their accounts shows net liabilities of $14,267,152, and total liabilities of $19,081,421.

The exact cost of the financial mismanagement to ZC is difficult to calculate because it is unclear how much they owed Metbank when the $6m loan from the ICC was granted.

Media reports in Zimbabwe estimated a further $15 million will be needed to erase the cricket board’s bad debt to Metbank.

It is also not clear whether ZC explained the conflict of interests involving Chingoka, Manase and Bvute when that loan was agreed upon, although the ICC should have been aware of it since the trio are listed as directors on the Metbank website and the facts are also stated in ZC’s annual audits.

The ICC would not have known that Bvute was a major shareholder unless it had been informed as such by ZC.

Asked to explain the reason for the delay in paying off the loan, Chingoka told ESPNcricinfo:
“Zimbabwe Cricket postponed utilisation of the ICC loan proceeds. Given the unstable financial market situation then, there was a risk that utilisation of the ICC loan proceeds was likely to result in ZC’s bankers failing to finance the renewed bank facilities. Zimbabwe Cricket’s main purpose for the loan was to service the current facilities with local banks so that ZC could borrow again.

“However, as a result of the status of the financial market then, such an initiative was no longer achievable. Meanwhile, temporary extension for the other bank facilities had been sought on the understanding that payment for the facilities will be done once the liquidity situation improved. So it is wrong and malicious to allege loss of money when Metropolitan Bank themselves were owed the most amount of money.”

Chingoka did not, however, answer questions on why ZC borrowed money from Metbank when it could have borrowed from the ICC at lower interest rates, or why ZC did not deposit the ICC loan into an interest-bearing account.

He did answer a question on the potential conflict of interest involving its top officials. “Non-executive directors (including Chingoka and Manase) at ZC guide the organisation’s strategy and policy whilst operational issues e.g. relationships with banks, are for the management of the organisation.”

Bvute was managing director of ZC until June 2012.

Asked about the misuse of the ICC loan, an ICC spokesman said only that the organisation does not comment on financial matters relating to its Full Members. A further request for comment on the latest US$3m loan, and the prospect of ZC being bailed out of its debt, received the same response.

Were the ICC to pay off the debt to Metbank, it would likely be helping to bail out the bank as well as the cricket board.

â—† Liam Brickhill is a freelance journalist based in Cape Town. Tristan Holme is a freelance cricket journalist who divides his time between South Africa and Zimbabwe.

◆ “The article published by Cricinfo this morning is a must-read for all those concerned about cricket in Zimbabwe and indeed the moral state of the game worldwide.” —

David Coltart, former Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture.

Editorial note – curiously the last paragraph referring to my Facebook post, which obviously was not in the original article published in Cricinfo, was added in by the Herald – presumably to reinforce the notion that somehow this is another racist plot. The article was also accompanied in the Herald by a long winded denial from Zimbabwe Cricket, which however skirted round the nub of this article – namely the alleged and approximate US$ 600,000 prejudice to Zimbabwe Cricket in favour of whichever Bank the ICC loan was deposited in interest free for some 5 months.

Sunday News

2nd March 2014

By Vusumuzi Dube and Kay Kaseke Sunday News Reporters 

DESPITE the recent unveiling of a $10 million boost for the Basic Education Assistance Module (Beam), it has since emerged that the money falls far short of the funding required, amid revelations that secondary schoolchildren and a number of pupils living with disabilities would not benefit from the facility.

The United Kingdom through its Department for International Development (DFID) on Thursday announced that $10 million would be provided next month to benefit over 250 000 primary schoolchildren in 5 415 primary schools throughout Zimbabwe this year.

In a statement, DFID noted that the funding was expected to contribute towards higher attendance and completion rates among orphans and vulnerable children.

“The UK through its Department for International Development (DFID) will provide US$10 million next month that will benefit over 250 000 eligible Beam primary schoolchildren in 5 415 primary and special schools throughout Zimbabwe this year. The funding will contribute to higher attendance and completion rates among orphans and vulnerable children,” reads the statement.

Previously, the fund has benefited both primary and secondary schoolchildren, with 550 000 benefiting; 400 000 from primary school level and 150 000 in secondary school. Since its launch in 2010, the fund has benefited over one million children.

Primary and Secondary Education Minister Dr Lazarus Dokora said there was, however, no need to panic as Government would continue to seek more funds to assist more children. He said his ministry was still working on the modalities of disbursing the fund.

“Most people have been alleging that the fund will probably be scrapped or downsized, although at the moment I cannot give the exact figures on how many people will benefit this time around. People should not panic this early as we are still working on the modalities,” said Dr Dokora.

Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Cde Nicholas Goche, under whose ministry the fund is managed, said the reason for downsizing was mainly because of funding problems but said the fund was still available despite fears that it would be eventually scrapped.

“The only problem is that the Government is finding it difficult to fund the facility but we are not saying the facility will be scrapped, we might downsize but this does not mean it has been totally scrapped, we will make use of what has been availed to us,” said Cde Goche, who refused to entertain further questions on reasons why the facility would only cater for primary schoolchildren.

Meanwhile, former Minister of Education, Sports and Culture, David Coltart said the facility had been underfunded for a number of years as under normal circumstances they required $50 million so as to cater for all children.

He said with the latest revelations it was apparent that the most affected would be the children living with disabilities as in most cases they were marginalised.

“All things being equal that facility should be funded to the tune of $50 million. Yes, naturally we are grateful to DFID for what they have contributed but as long as it is continually underfunded we will continue to have such problems and naturally not all children will benefit from Beam meaning we might have a sharp increase of school dropouts.

“In this case I especially feel sorry for children living with disabilities because as the funding dwindles they will be the most affected because they are always marginalised,” he said.

He said he was grateful for the donation that was made but it was not sufficient to cater for all children stating that the responsibility rested with Government not with donor organisations to raise funds for Government programmes and Government should make it a priority to fully fund such programmes.

Mr Ngoni Masoka, Secretary for Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, last month wrote to all provincial education directors advising them of Government’s move to suspend Beam assistance to special schools citing funding problems.

“The Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare kindly requests the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to convey the message to all special schools that Beam allocations to these schools have been postponed pending the outcome of your ministry’s discussion on challenges being experienced within special schools,” said the secretary.

An official in the social services and welfare department, told Sunday News that more than 420 000 children were reported to be still out of school and more were going to drop out as the fund only had $15 million.