By Thomas Chidamba
The much-awaited Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill set to be tabled before Parliament has opened a can of worms and left mining stakeholders divided in opinion with some in support while others are calling fort extensive consultations before it is presented before the August House
The Mines and Mining Development ministry together with the office of the Attorney-General have been working on some grey areas on proposed amendments before the Bill is re-read in Parliament.
Mining stakeholders have urged government to come clean on the contents of the Amendment Bill before it is re-tabled in Parliament anytime this year as they feel their contribution have been sidelined for unknown reasons.
Amending of the colonial and archaic Mines and Minerals Act, which was enacted in Rhodesia in 1961, has taken far too long thereby elbowing out indigenous players from mining despite the country boasting an abundance of natural resources.
Successive Mines ministers have only promised to amend the Act but were either fired or reassigned before the Amendment passed.
Mines minister Winston Chitando nearly had the Bill passed into law two years ago when it successfully passed through Parliament and sent to President Emmerson Mnangagwa for ascension but was referred back for recrafting to address some anomalies.
The Bill is set to be re-tabled in Parliament anytime after Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi recently confirmed that the will is now set for re-reading in the August House.
Centre for Natural Resources Governance director Farai Maguwu said mining stakeholders were in the dark of what was added or subtracted from the initial Bill.
“Initially there were consultations but the Bill was sent back by the President. No one knows what was added or subtracted from the initial Bill. This is the bone of contention. It must not be tabled in Parliament before stakeholder input.
“However, there also does not seem to be any political will to get the Bill signed into law. Most likely the current Parliament will be dissolved before the process is finalised and then come 2023 election, a new mines committee is set up and they start all over again,” he said.
Small-scale miners said they had a bone of contention with some sections of the initial Bill they alleging were meant to elbow them out of mining business.
Artisanal and Small Scale Miners Association (ASSA) national chairman Blessing Togarepi said they will be hard done if the Bill was to be amended without their input.
“We appreciate some improvements and amendments in the Bill, however, there are areas which we have noted with concern that if these amendments are to be adopted, then small scale miners will not enjoy and benefit compared to a situation whereby a status quo is maintained
“Our borne of disagreement is what reason justifies the involvement of a board in granting mining rights? How many times will that board sit and how many people will be interviewed weekly, monthly and annually? Is this not creating a needless bottleneck in mineral searching and mine titles administration? How inclusive is the board system judging from similar boards elsewhere? How many people will qualify before a board? If the board knows how lucrative and promising is the area that I want to extract, will it not be tempted to decline my application and later sell my find to the highest bidder?” Togarepi queried.
Zimbabwe Prospectus Union president Simon Dzingwe said the Bill cannot be passed without stakeholder involvement.
“How can there be a call for second reading of the Bill in Parliament without making the Bill public as per procedure? We have been sidelined and not consulted since 2018 and up-to-date, thus how can the bill go for second reading when all stakeholders were not consulted.
“by making the Bill a secret, private and personal instead of national and public, they might want to smuggle some clauses that are against us because they are capable of passing bad legislation like what they did earlier only for Mnangagwa to reject it. The earlier Bill had obscure, vacuum, ambiguous, conflicting, not transparent and not accountable clauses tantamount to red tape, chicanery, bottle neck and corruption.
“We are aware of individuals who are benefiting from crafting of bad legislation who claim that all stakeholders were consulted when in fact a few individuals representing favoured or special groups were consulted. Stakeholders are speaking through a petition to stop the Bill from being passed into law,” he said.
Legal expert Blessing Gorejena-Ndlovu said it was good practice to incorporate stakeholder views but that cannot invalidate a Bill.
“Although it is not a legal rule that would technically invalidate a bill, stakeholder consultation is key at the stage of drafting bills. It is standard good practice in ensuring that views of stakeholders are incorporated at the stage of drafting.
“Regarding legal options for the stakeholders to stop the Bill, generally the courts cannot interfere with the role of another arm of government that is Parliament. This is the principle of separation of powers. Because it is the role of parliament to make laws, the courts can only interpret the law assessing its legal validity viz-a-vis the Constitution and the rule of law principles. Interfering with the parliamentary process may be viewed as tempering with the separation of powers.
“However, if there are legally valid concerns that the parliamentary process of making the law is itself unlawful and against the Constitution then yes stakeholders can mount legal challenge to stoop the illegality. Otherwise the possible recourse would be lobbying the parliamentarians and Parliament itself to ensure either that stakeholder views are incorporated before the Bill is passed into law or to stop the Bill from being passed into law,” she said.
Government has dangled an ambitious US$12 billion mining economy by 2023 which it is likely to miss due to policy inconsistency.
Follow Thomas on Twitter@chidambathomas
