eBusiness Weekly
Taurai Togarepi
The current administration led by President Mnangagwa gave a three month-window period for businesses and individuals that had externalised money to repatriate on a no-questions-asked basis.
The window was extended by close to two weeks to give ample time to those who had failed to finish the processes within the 90-day period.
The apex bank estimated that around $1,4 billion was externalised by companies and individuals in foreign banks through non-repatriation of export receipts, payments of imports not received in Zimbabwe, deposits in foreign banks and spurious transactions.
Under the amnesty, a total of $591,1 million was recovered leaving a balance of around $826,5 million.
There has been an outcry in the last few days with some companies and individuals surprised their names appeared on the list of those on the wrong side of the law. What does this mean? Can we say the apex bank sold bottled smoke?
Maybe it was imperative for the Reserve Bank to clearly define what it meant by externalisation as some argue that all their transactions were above board and done through the banking system.
There are reports that some companies have sought assistance from lawyers and the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries to recover what they are owed. The question is should these companies with genuine reasons be on the list or their cases were supposed to be treated differently.
Their argument is once something is said and appear in the public domain it may have dire consequences on their reputation, integrity and may affect their future relationships with banks and other stakeholders.
Should the Reserve Bank have handled these cases differently?
If the concerns of these companies are genuine, can we then trust the list or what should be done going forward as this is a topical issue and is viewed as one of the measures to improve liquidity in the economy.
Some circles are questioning the names on the list at is reflected that Zimbabwe has one of the most law abiding senior government officials and politicians as they do not appear on the list. If true, this is commendable and should be maintained going forward under the current administration.
There was need for a thorough vetting of these transactions on a case by case basis in order to avoid legal battles in cases where companies and individuals have genuine reasons which may not necessarily amount to externalization.
The significant number of Chinese nationals or companies with links to Chinese nationals is a worrying development considering that the Government has in the past adopted a look East Policy.
Does that mean there were deficiencies in the investment agreements? If so, the current administration needs to learn from this experience and negotiate for packages that result in a win-win situation.
