Why are Zimbabweans generally poor? This question speaks directly to the idea of the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF) as it cannot be said that what is missing in Zimbabwe are aspirations and opportunities but values.
It started as a debate on tweeter Twitter about the underlying causes of the dispute that arose at AGM of the policyholders of FML about the operations of this company.
One of the disputes relates to the investment made by FML in the Econet IPO in 1998. It is contended by Mr. Jackson Muzivi, a former employee of FML and one of the principal players in this drama that has refused to end, that had all the information pertaining to the Econet investment opportunity been openly and transparently disclosed, there is no doubt that FML would not have invested in the manner it did.
The core dispute that Mr. Nyambirai who was neither a director nor shareholder of Econet and TSM can now seek to be a surrogate of the key actors in this drama, was whether TSM was the lawful owner of the equipment that was purportedly sold to Econet for the IPO and paid with 60% of the shares issued by Econet.
It is this transaction that Mr. Nyambirai seeks to divert the attention of the public from. He has already lied that he has personal knowledge about the facts surrounding the Econet IPO yet he has so far refused or failed to provide a record of the factual and legal information supporting the representation in the Prospectus that TSM owned the equipment that was allegedly capitalized in the Econet balance sheet to give Strive Masiyiwa the control that he obtained in TSM and Econet.
Mr. Nyambirai has sought to malign Ms. Miriam Mutizwa in this dispute fully knowing that he cannot add any new facts to what is already in the public domain about the dark side of Econet that needs to be known by all especially the people whose lives were wrecked in havoc like Mr. Muzivi as a result of exposing the alleged corruption and fraud in respect to the construction of Econet’s financial foundation.
In this Part 3 of a conversation between Ms. Mutizwa and Mr. Nyambirai, Ms. Mutizwa asserts that contrary to Mr. Nyambirai’s assertion, she is confident that the version that Mr. Masiyiwa, prior to his departure from Zimbabwe in 2000, had applied to the High Court of Zimbabwe to stop the investigation into the affairs of FML and the appointment of Mr. Mawere led investigation team to do the investigation.
Below is the text of her response:
“I am aware that you have commissioned people to dig some dirt on me and I remain resolute that nothing can divert and distort my contention that the truth has to be laid bare so that the people can be released from the sleaze that you now seem to be an expert on.
I never expected in my entire life that I would be confronted by a lawyer, who is a member of the Zimbabwe Law Society, arguing protecting the truth from being shared.
I have not sought to attack your personal integrity yet the brickbats I got from you confirms that there is more than what meets the eye in the Econet IPO saga and I am still battling to understand what your personal interest is in trying to make me the problem.
I bear no personal grudges with anyone in this matter. My personal interest is in building bridges based on the truth. I have engaged my brother, Mr. Busisa Moyo, who has made an impassioned appeal that it is high time that Zimbabweans with a lot to lose from a dysfunctional country must come together and speak with one voice on corruption and the rule of law.
In this vein, your tone and attitude would seem to suggest that the protection and promotion of your erstwhile client, Mr. Masiyiwa, is more important than you assisting the public with the correct facts so that we can put the FML dispute behind us.
You have tried indirectly through Mr. Tich Mutyambizi and now directly to thwart any inquiry into the affairs of Econet and more specifically in addressing the serious allegations pertaining to the Econet IPO.
I am surprised that you state boldly that:
It may be the case that you are not personally aware of the application by Econet and Masiyiwa to stop the FML investigation, however, you fail to state whether it is Masiyiwa’s position that he has no personal knowledge of the existence of this application.
I have noted from Mr. Mawere’s twitter thread that he confirms that he was the recipient of such an application. If his version is confirmed by court records, what would be your position in respect of the allegation that the reason that Masiyiwa left Zimbabwe in a huff could be related to the FML investigation?
I have noted with concern that your version in relation to the equipment in dispute seems to be changing at every turn. You started by misleading the public into believing that the equipment was procured pursuant to a facility that was partly financed by a company called, Telecel International, to the tune of $1 million as follows:
You state in your own words that the equipment was imported at a time when Econet’s technical partner was Telecel International.
You state as true and fact that at the material time, the partnership between Econet and Telecel International in relation to the same equipment whose purported acquisition by TSM formed the subject matter of the FML investigation, had terminated.
It is important that we hear the version from a representative of Telecel International to test the correctness of your version.
You have also sought to represent Telecel International in stating as true and fact that this company had been a guarantor for the purchase of the disputed equipment that miraculously ended in the possession of TSM immediately prior to the Econet IPO. I guess that your version can only be best tested by approaching a representative of Telecel International who may have personal knowledge about the facts.
I am sure you will agree that you have no personal knowledge of the Telecel International version that you seem at liberty to represent.
You state as true and fact that after difficult negotiations, the facility was transferred to Strive’s Family Company, TS Masiyiwa Investments Private Limited.
You also have represented that the value of the equipment that was transferred to TSM was Z$64,720,000.00 which version permitted you to state boldly that TSM was in turn owed the same value of the equipment by Econet,
You then state as fact that TSM decided to convert the shareholder loan into equity (shares) at a discount of 32.84% thus for shares with Z$43,468,000.00 in Econet.
You then conclude that: “This is how TSM came to hold a total of 434,679,999 Econet shares in addition to the 320,001 shares that were already in issue,” implying that Telecel International was instrumental in facilitating teh acquisition of the control of Econet by way of equipment.
You have also stated that Econet issued 40% of its capital to Telecel International in exchange of the funds advanced towards the equipment acquisition.
It is not clear from your version how Telecel International lost the shares but your have represented that MTN became the successor to Telecel International after having paid R8 million presumably to Telecel International in exchange of the shares.
What is left is for me to establish from both Telecel International and MTN representatives whether there any facts supporting your version.
You have stated boldly that: “The Econet IPO was oversubscribed, meaning that the demand for the shares was more than the shares that were available. Investors had to be given back their money. If, for some reason, FML had to withdraw from its contractual obligations to subscribe for the shares, there was no shortage of takers to replace FML,” and be rest assured that I will dig deeper into this disclosure as you have not provided any data in support of your submissions.
I am encouraged that you have at least provided versions that can easily be tested and I intend to expose the truth in this matter so that we can move on without unnecessary public disputes of facts on historical matters.