By Martin Muleya
A Zimbabwe Environmental Lawyers Association (ZELA) legal expert has said the Mines and Mineral Policy Bill that is before Parliament should guarantee certainty, clarity, and policy consistency for Zimbabwe’s mining industry to thrive.
Speaking during a Zoom meeting on Mining Policy Dialogue that was organised by Transparency International Zimbabwe, ZELA representative, Richard Ncube, hinted that the first legislation governing the country’s mining industry was enacted in 1961. The law, however, was last amended (though it was piecemeal) in 1996. There has been a desperate need to amend and align these laws with the 2013 homegrown Constitution.
Speaking on the vulnerability of the mining sector due to a lack of an up-to-date mining policy, Ncube said that community participation, access to information, computerized system–commonly known as the Cadetsra system–, exploration of data and farmer-miner conflicts were some of the laws that yearn to be covered in the Constitution if Zimbabwe is to benefit from its mineral deposits.
“Mining is a big industry in Zimbabwe with a capacity to contribute to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But the problem we have is, our laws are not aligned to the global mining international law standards.
“Community participation, access to information, computerized system, exploration of data, free prior and informed consent are some of the existing laws that are not properly covered in the Mining Policy.
“Farmer-miner conflict existing law seems to favour the miner as opposed to the farmer who owns the land, yet there should be a balance. Zimbabwe should have (up-to-date) laws.
“The role of the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development should be to ensure that mining policies speak to each other,” said Ncube.
He reiterated that these outdated laws have been a drawback to mining development as no investor is interested in working in an environment fraught with laws that are obsolete.
To further exacerbate the chaos in the mining industry, the Ministry has heavily been relying on old topographical maps that are barely visible.
The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mines and Mining Development looked at these guiding principles:
- The investment environment
- The new administrative measures
- The ever changing fiscal regime
- The harmonization of players in mining, supply and production.
- The governance of corporates
The collapse of the farming sector at the turn of the new millennium, in 2000, meant that the mining industry required about US$ 3.9 billion in the next five years to support its projected growth and has to be supported by a strong legal and policy framework.
Another legal expert, Nigel Sithole, weighed in saying the Mining Policy that is before Parliament sought to redress the mining industry by solidifying certain ways in which mining should be done.
In 2016, the methodology used by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee passed in drafting a recommendation Bill. Public hearings were conducted across the country in line with Section 141 (b) of the Constitution. However, there were a lot of contentious issues that were identified and in the process drawing the Bill back from 2016-2018.
“A final version was solidified by the committee in 2019. The Bill thus destroyed (the) small scale mining sector gradually.
“Issues in the first Bill that raised concerns. . . were changed or remained. Strategic minerals bill solidified what the economy regarded as strategic minerals. I believe the idea was progressive though it did not include gold and diamond.
“The mining laws allowed the minister, from time to time, to identify strategic minerals, but this idea was borrowed from the Republic of South Africa and it is not yielding the desired results,” noted Sithole.
Sithole also said the Bill should comprehensively address the issue of property rights as the current position that mining rights supersede any individual rights is key to the survival of the Zimbabwe’s economy.
Sithole spoke strongly against communal ownership of mineral resources saying that it would be a futile exercise; he believes a presidential stewardship of minerals is sensible.
“I don’t think it’s feasible; community ownership will set us back even further. The general populace in South Africa has not benefited from the ownership of platinum. . . by the Bafokeng family. All it has done is to enrich a royal family beyond their wildest dreams and has not really practically impacted the lives of even the subjects of the Bafokeng people in the North West province. So to me, mining title always should be vested in the custodianship of an elected public official who can be controlled by the public vote”.
Apart from that, he noted that the Mining Policy was silent on the number of government officials to sit in the Board.
“Nongovernmental officers have six seats; government officials have a massive 13 seats. Also, the Bill allowed the Minister of Mines to appoint two other ex-officials at his discretion. This, to Young Miners, felt it was a bloated board that would be too costly for the Ministry, and therefore, a proposed six Nongovernmental officers and seven government officials (Board) would have done justice to the in terms of expenses and corporate governance ethics (sic).”
The legal expert also addressed gender parity in the mining sector.
“On the government side, there is no obligation for gender parity. This needs to be addressed in line with Section 17 of the Constitution. There is need to establish some kind of gender balance in the mining industry,” added Sithole.
Sithole summed up by urging the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development to work with Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) to address corruption in the sector. He said there is need to promulgate a policy on the formalisation of the Artisanal and Small Scale Miners sector to curb violence and environmental degradation.
