Like everyone else I have read the wiki-leaks and like everyone else I can say that this is really embarrassing for US diplomacy. Where does it go from here?
It reminds of a forum I recently participated in on Face Book. The issue was about gossip; some of my colleagues stated that gossiping is a sign of failure another one them even went on to put a religious dimension to it and said those who gossiped would not get blessings [maybe those who gossip should forget about ever going to heaven]. I begged to differ with all them, I warned that in fact I knew most of them and I put it to them that in fact we had engaged in gossiping with them at some point. I also begged to differ with them that gossipers are failures because in fact there are many living gossipers who are billionaires and I warned against conclusive mentalities which created nexuses away from empiricism. Proven knowledge is always better than idealistic perspectives and I put to them my proven nexus between gossiping and those billionaires.
Gossip in the contemporary world has become an integral part of a moving discourse and it has created its own ethics, professions, professionals and entrepreneurs. Gossip has always been there with us and it has become a way of life for others and a livelihood for many more. In politics, be it corporate governance or political party politics gossip can be used as a tool for manoeuvring and those who don’t engage in it may not do so at their own peril. What’s the purpose of all this in the context of what I have embarked on saying; because to me the wiki-leaks represent gossip in the Zimbabwean perspective. What former Ambassador Chris Dell said was also gossip; it was a diplomatic briefing that involved his assessment of the Zimbabwean situation and both the American narrative and perspective in the Zimbabwean question and it is an individual assessment that to me seems to border on four missions; (i) the obligatory mission that emanates from his diplomatic role in Zimbabwe (ii) the observatory role which emanates from his duty to observe and assess the situation in Zimbabwe on behalf of his country, (iii) the expectation interest which is the appraisal by the wider public of his role as an American ambassador at a very difficult time in the history of Zimbabwe and (iv) his own performance appraisal. The last two represent the main reasons for his briefing because he would naturally be bent on coming up with a vindication for his posting in Zimbabwe. His motivation was obviously to justify his presence and the promotion of American interests in the same way as a Zimbabwean ambassador must justify his presence in a diplomatic mission and promote Zimbabwean interests.
Wiki-Leaks founder Julian Assange is also a gossiper and again he has his own motivation but his instant heroism or vilification is due to the fact that he leaked documents that were not supposed to be in the public domain. I am not going to attempt to look at that but I am going to look at Ambassador Dell and his verdict on the politics of Zimbabwe. Although there is no proof whatsoever that US policy on Zimbabwe was influenced by what he said, the US will not escape a charge of trying to meddle in the politics of Zimbabwe. His criticism of almost everyone and his fascination to see the back of President Mugabe in particular will definitely be viewed as an attempt at regime change. Yet some of his analyses can only be ignored at our own peril. Let’s ignore the regime change agenda for a moment and let’s take the whole criticism by him as the construction of an anthropologist. Because I think there is an interesting payout of social and political dividends from this derivative.
Ambassador Dell has touched at what is wrong with our politics. He has not tried to hide the fact the President Mugabe is an intelligent man. He clearly is and he has also said President Mugabe is a shrewd tactician; which he truly is. But Ambassador Dell has talked of the fascination of President Mugabe to dwell on the past and overlook the dividends of openness and this is what is drawing us back as a country. Openness in politics, in the economy, in the social scene all are important facets of the contemporary political discourse. Zimbabwe has removed itself from the path of progress by paranoia. It is sad that 30 years after our independence we still think we can be re-colonised. To me that is a clear admission of mental subjugation, those who talk about the possibilities of re-colonisation 30 years after our independence are admitting failure in a coded language. What they are telling the whole world is that "look we have been there for 30 years during which time we have been playing and warming our seats and we neglected the duty of building the structures to withstand any external threats". For the major part of our history we were a free country, we are the home of heroes such as Changamire Dombo, my ancestor, who stood against both the Mwene Mutapa his own black brothers and the Portuguese who wanted to colonise us. We are the proud home of Mzilikazi; that principled King who stood against both Zwide his tormentor and Shaka, the man who had freed him from Zwide but who was oppressive towards his own people, and chose freedom rather than being a better captive. The period in which we were colonised is 90 years compared to the many years we have been a country, two major Empires were based here and they built the Great Zimbabwe and attempted to explore the moon.
The paranoia about colonisation is a verdict on the structuralism and functionalism of the Zimbabwe nation state, 30 years after our re-independence. It has shaken even the proud liberation history as if we have enemies and indeed we have been fighting them for the past 10years, then we have bad generals because a good fighter will choose wisely the battles to fight. I was once a street-fighter but I never failed because I knew when to fight and when to make peace but when I fought I won big battles and retained a reputation as one of the finest. It is sad that the tactics that have been employed have been solely driven by paranoia and it was meant to destroy descent and not to advance the nation state. Yes ZANU PF cannot be forced to see the rise of the MDC and they cannot aid them in that upward direction but an attack on democracy is not desirable either.
And Ambassador Dell’s assessment of PM Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC cannot be vilified either. That he is a brave leader is without doubt. I however differ where he seems to say he is not shrewd. I personally think PM Tsvangirai is both brave and shrewd because if he was not shrewd he could not have been standing to this day. He has survived many plots both within the MDC and also by ZANU PF and shrewdness will have another meaning if that is not its example. But PM Tsvangirai has a problem of not listening to advice, nepotism, surrounding himself in the comfort of people who will not criticise him and has also shown a total disregard of the MDC constitution in particular and democratic principles in general. He has fallen trap to his own success in opposition and has now become another revolutionary aristocrat who thinks that “nothing meaningful in Zimbabwe’s opposition politics” can be done without him”.
He has failed to maintain alliances that the MDC has always had like the NCA and at times even ZCTU because he forgot that MDC is a product of those organisations and not the other way round. The attempt to influence what happens in ZINASU, ZCTU, NCA etc is a very worrying scenario for a party that can one day become the sole governing party. It simply means that during the tenure of MDC labour and student activism may fail to exist independently. His unwillingness to follow the constitution and allow the emergence of another leader is also worrying as it shows that there will be a continued disregard of the rule of law even under his rule. It shows his unwillingness to dictate the pace in the politics of Zimbabwe by occupying space as the true alternative as MDC would have shown a different agenda by doing what ZANU PF has failed to do since 1977; leadership renewal.
Professor Welshman Ncube has repeatedly failed to articulate the real reasons behind the split of the MDC in 2005 with his answers bothering on defensiveness and playing into trivial issues such as his “membership” of the Central Intelligence Organisation. The ghost of that split will continue to haunt him because at the time of the split their camp made the mistake of putting a picture of Morgan Tsvangirai as the real devil of Zimbabwean politics but against the backdrop of “Operation Murambatsvina” that portrayal of Morgan Tsvangirai was laughable even in ZANU PF circles. He has failed to show that there were ideological differences and personality clashes between him and Morgan Tsvangirai and that those differences were unhealthy for the union prompting it to split.
He has failed to tell the public tribunal that MDC would have split even if the issue of the Senate had not come and October 12 2005 was a date for long on the calendar. I personally think he is a good politician who also has his own ambitions but has failed to tell his story clearly. Zimbabweans also know that there can be nothing shocking for a political party to emerge in Zimbabwe that has an agenda which is more radical than ZANU PF. This is what Professor Mutambara wants to do but he seems to be dishonest about it. In the UK the British Nationalist Party is a far right party with views that are more radical than the Tories but it is there and has a good number of supporters.
My conclusion is that the Wiki-Leaks are really bad for American diplomacy but at least to Zimbabwean leaders they give us an anthropological perspective into own our strengths and weaknesses and Ambassador Dell has criticised almost all the important players in Zimbabwe which found favour with me. He is not God or his second son, but he has enriched the political landscape in our country and we have the chance to work out our weaknesses for the good of everyone in Zimbabwe.
Be Judge!
Julius Sai Mutyambizi-DEWA is the Chairman of Communities Point but writes in his own capacity.
Contact: mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 07401182271 or 07529705413
Monday 29 November 2010
ZIMBABWE: A REFLECTION ON WIKILEAKS: JULIUS SAI MUTYAMBIZI-DEWA
Like everyone else I have read the wiki-leaks and like everyone else I can say that this is really embarrassing for US diplomacy. Where does it go from here?
It reminds of a forum I recently participated in on Face Book. The issue was about gossip; some of my colleagues stated that gossiping is a sign of failure another one even went on to put a religious dimension to it and said those who gossiped would not get blessings [maybe those who gossip should forget about ever going to heaven]. I begged to differ with all them, I warned that in fact I knew most of them and I put it to them that in fact we had engaged in gossiping with them at some point. I also begged to differ with them that gossipers are failures because in fact there are many living gossipers who are billionaires and I warned against conclusive mentalities which created nexuses away from empiricism. Proven knowledge is always better than idealistic perspectives and I put to them my proven nexus between gossiping and those billionaires.
Gossip in the contemporary world has become an integral part of a moving discourse and it has created its own ethics, professions, professionals and entrepreneurs. Gossip has always been there with us and it has become a way of life for others and a livelihood for many more. In politics, be it corporate governance or political party politics gossip can be used as a tool for manoeuvring and those who don’t engage in it may not do so at their own peril. What’s the purpose of all this in the context of what I have embarked on saying; because to me the wiki-leaks represent gossip in the Zimbabwean perspective what former Ambassador Chris Dell said was also gossip; it was a diplomatic briefing that involved his assessment of the Zimbabwean situation and both the American narrative and perspective in the Zimbabwean question and it is an individual assessment that to me seem to border on four missions; (i) the obligatory mission that emanates from his diplomatic role in Zimbabwe (ii) the observatory role which emanates from his duty to observe and assess the situation in Zimbabwe on behalf of his country, (iii) the expectation interest which is the appraisal by the wider public of his role as an American ambassador at a very difficult time in the history of Zimbabwe and (iv) his own performance appraisal. The last two are to me represent the main reasons for his briefing because he would naturally be bent on coming up with a vindication for his posting in Zimbabwe. His motivation was obviously to justify his presence and the promotion of American interests in the same way as a Zimbabwean ambassador must justify his presence in a diplomatic mission and promote Zimbabwean interests.
Wiki-Leaks founder Julian Assange is also a gossiper and again he has his own motivation but his instant heroism or vilification is due to the fact that he leaked documents that were not supposed to be in the public domain. I am not going to attempt to look at that but I am going to look at Ambassador Dell and his verdict on the politics of Zimbabwe. Although there is no proof whatsoever that US policy on Zimbabwe was influenced by what he said, the US will not escape a charge of trying to meddle in the politics of Zimbabwe. His criticism of almost everyone and his fascination to see the back of President Mugabe in particular will definitely be viewed as an attempt at regime change. Yet some of his analyses can only be ignored at our own peril. Let’s ignore the regime change agenda for a moment and let’s take the whole criticism by him as the construction of an anthropologist. Because I think there is an interesting payout of social and political dividends from this derivative.
Ambassador Dell has touched at what is wrong with our politics. He has not tried to hide the fact the President Mugabe is an intelligent man. He clearly is and he has also said President Mugabe is a shrewd tactician; which he truly is. But Ambassador Dell has talked of the fascination of President Mugabe to dwell in the past and overlook the dividends of openness and this is what is drawing us back as a country. Openness in politics, in the economy, in the social scene all are important facets of the contemporary political discourse. Zimbabwe has removed itself from the path of progress by paranoia, it is sad that 30 years after our independence we still think we can be re-colonised. To me that is a clear admission of mental subjugation, those who talk about the possibilities of re-colonisation 30 years after our independence are admitting failure in a coded language. What they are telling the whole world is that look we have been there for 30 years during which time we have been playing and warming our seats and we neglected the duty of building the structures to withstand any external threats. For the major part of our history we were a free country, we are the home of heroes such as Changamire Dombo, my ancestor, who stood against both the Mwene Mutapa his own black brothers and the Portuguese who wanted to colonise us. We are the proud home of Mzilikazi; that principled King who stood against both Zwide and Shaka and chose freedom rather than being a better captive. The period in which we were colonised is 90 years compared to the many years we have been a country, two major empires were based here and they built the Great Zimbabwe and attempted to explore the moon.
The paranoia about colonisation is a verdict on the structuralism and functionalism of the Zimbabwe nation state, 30 years after our re-independence. It has shaken even the proud liberation history as if we have enemies and indeed we have been fighting them for the past 10years, then we have bad generals because a good fighter will choose wisely the battles to fight. I was once a street-fighter but I never failed because I knew when to fight and when to make peace but when I fought I won big battles and retained a reputation as one of the finest. It is sad that the tactics that have been employed have been solely driven by paranoia and it was meant to destroy descent and not to advance the nation state. Yes ZANU PF cannot be forced to see the rise of the MDC and they cannot aid them in that upward direction but an attack on democracy is not desirable either.
And Ambassador Dell’s assessment of PM Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC cannot be vilified either. That he is a brave leader is without doubt. I however differ where he seems to say he is not shrewd. I personally think PM Tsvangirai is both brave and shrewd because if he was not shrewd he could not have been standing to this day. He has survived many plots both within the MDC and also by ZANU PF and shrewdness will have another meaning if that is not its example. But PM Tsvangirai has a problem of not listening to advice, nepotism, surrounding himself in the comfort of people who will not criticise him and has also shown a total disregard of the MDC constitution in particular and democratic principles in general. He has fallen trap to his own success in opposition and has now become another revolutionary aristocrat who thinks that “nothing meaningful in Zimbabwe’s opposition politics” can be done without him”. He has failed to maintain alliances that the MDC has always had like the NCA and at times even ZCTU because he forgot that MDC is a product of those organisations and not the other way round. The attempt to influence what happens in ZINASU, ZCTU, NCA etc is a very worrying scenario for a party that can one day become the sole governing party. It simply means that during the tenure of MDC labour and student activism may fail to exist independently. His unwillingness to follow the constitution and allow the emergence of another leader is also worrying as it shows that there will be a continued disregard of the rule of law even under his rule. It shows his unwillingness to dictate the pace in the politics of Zimbabwe by occupying space as the true alternative as MDC would have shown a different agenda by doing what ZANU PF has failed to do since 1977; leadership renewal.
Professor Welshman Ncube has repeatedly failed to articulate the real reasons behind the split of the MDC in 2005 with his answers bothering on defensiveness and playing into trivial issues such as his “membership” of the Central Intelligence Organisation. The ghost of that split will continue to haunt him because at the time of the split their camp made the mistake of putting a picture of Morgan Tsvangirai as the real devil of Zimbabwean politics but against the backdrop of “Operation Murambatsvina” that portrayal of Morgan Tsvangirai was laughable even in ZANU PF circles. He has failed to show that there were ideological differences and personality clashes between him and Morgan Tsvangirai and that those differences were unhealthy for the union prompting it to split.
He has failed to tell the public tribunal that MDC would have split even if the issue of the Senate had not come and October 12 2005 was a date for long on the calendar. I personally think he is a good politician who also has his own ambitions but has failed to tell his story clearly. Zimbabweans also know that there can be nothing shocking for a political party to emerge in Zimbabwe that has an agenda which is more radical than ZANU PF. This is what Professor Mutambara wants to do but he seems to be dishonest about it. In the UK the British Nationalist Party is a far right party with views that are more radical than the Tories but it is there and has a good number of supporters.
My conclusion is that the Wiki-Leaks are really bad for American democracy but at least to Zimbabwean leaders they give as an anthropological perspective into own our strengths and weaknesses and Ambassador Dell has criticised almost all the important players in Zimbabwe which found favour with me. He is not God or his second son, but he has enriched the political landscape in our country and we have the chance to work out our weaknesses for the good of everyone in Zimbabwe.
Be Judge!
Julius Sai Mutyambizi-DEWA is the Chairman of Communities Point but writes in his own capacity.
Contact: mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 07401182271 or 07529705413
It reminds of a forum I recently participated in on Face Book. The issue was about gossip; some of my colleagues stated that gossiping is a sign of failure another one even went on to put a religious dimension to it and said those who gossiped would not get blessings [maybe those who gossip should forget about ever going to heaven]. I begged to differ with all them, I warned that in fact I knew most of them and I put it to them that in fact we had engaged in gossiping with them at some point. I also begged to differ with them that gossipers are failures because in fact there are many living gossipers who are billionaires and I warned against conclusive mentalities which created nexuses away from empiricism. Proven knowledge is always better than idealistic perspectives and I put to them my proven nexus between gossiping and those billionaires.
Gossip in the contemporary world has become an integral part of a moving discourse and it has created its own ethics, professions, professionals and entrepreneurs. Gossip has always been there with us and it has become a way of life for others and a livelihood for many more. In politics, be it corporate governance or political party politics gossip can be used as a tool for manoeuvring and those who don’t engage in it may not do so at their own peril. What’s the purpose of all this in the context of what I have embarked on saying; because to me the wiki-leaks represent gossip in the Zimbabwean perspective what former Ambassador Chris Dell said was also gossip; it was a diplomatic briefing that involved his assessment of the Zimbabwean situation and both the American narrative and perspective in the Zimbabwean question and it is an individual assessment that to me seem to border on four missions; (i) the obligatory mission that emanates from his diplomatic role in Zimbabwe (ii) the observatory role which emanates from his duty to observe and assess the situation in Zimbabwe on behalf of his country, (iii) the expectation interest which is the appraisal by the wider public of his role as an American ambassador at a very difficult time in the history of Zimbabwe and (iv) his own performance appraisal. The last two are to me represent the main reasons for his briefing because he would naturally be bent on coming up with a vindication for his posting in Zimbabwe. His motivation was obviously to justify his presence and the promotion of American interests in the same way as a Zimbabwean ambassador must justify his presence in a diplomatic mission and promote Zimbabwean interests.
Wiki-Leaks founder Julian Assange is also a gossiper and again he has his own motivation but his instant heroism or vilification is due to the fact that he leaked documents that were not supposed to be in the public domain. I am not going to attempt to look at that but I am going to look at Ambassador Dell and his verdict on the politics of Zimbabwe. Although there is no proof whatsoever that US policy on Zimbabwe was influenced by what he said, the US will not escape a charge of trying to meddle in the politics of Zimbabwe. His criticism of almost everyone and his fascination to see the back of President Mugabe in particular will definitely be viewed as an attempt at regime change. Yet some of his analyses can only be ignored at our own peril. Let’s ignore the regime change agenda for a moment and let’s take the whole criticism by him as the construction of an anthropologist. Because I think there is an interesting payout of social and political dividends from this derivative.
Ambassador Dell has touched at what is wrong with our politics. He has not tried to hide the fact the President Mugabe is an intelligent man. He clearly is and he has also said President Mugabe is a shrewd tactician; which he truly is. But Ambassador Dell has talked of the fascination of President Mugabe to dwell in the past and overlook the dividends of openness and this is what is drawing us back as a country. Openness in politics, in the economy, in the social scene all are important facets of the contemporary political discourse. Zimbabwe has removed itself from the path of progress by paranoia, it is sad that 30 years after our independence we still think we can be re-colonised. To me that is a clear admission of mental subjugation, those who talk about the possibilities of re-colonisation 30 years after our independence are admitting failure in a coded language. What they are telling the whole world is that look we have been there for 30 years during which time we have been playing and warming our seats and we neglected the duty of building the structures to withstand any external threats. For the major part of our history we were a free country, we are the home of heroes such as Changamire Dombo, my ancestor, who stood against both the Mwene Mutapa his own black brothers and the Portuguese who wanted to colonise us. We are the proud home of Mzilikazi; that principled King who stood against both Zwide and Shaka and chose freedom rather than being a better captive. The period in which we were colonised is 90 years compared to the many years we have been a country, two major empires were based here and they built the Great Zimbabwe and attempted to explore the moon.
The paranoia about colonisation is a verdict on the structuralism and functionalism of the Zimbabwe nation state, 30 years after our re-independence. It has shaken even the proud liberation history as if we have enemies and indeed we have been fighting them for the past 10years, then we have bad generals because a good fighter will choose wisely the battles to fight. I was once a street-fighter but I never failed because I knew when to fight and when to make peace but when I fought I won big battles and retained a reputation as one of the finest. It is sad that the tactics that have been employed have been solely driven by paranoia and it was meant to destroy descent and not to advance the nation state. Yes ZANU PF cannot be forced to see the rise of the MDC and they cannot aid them in that upward direction but an attack on democracy is not desirable either.
And Ambassador Dell’s assessment of PM Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC cannot be vilified either. That he is a brave leader is without doubt. I however differ where he seems to say he is not shrewd. I personally think PM Tsvangirai is both brave and shrewd because if he was not shrewd he could not have been standing to this day. He has survived many plots both within the MDC and also by ZANU PF and shrewdness will have another meaning if that is not its example. But PM Tsvangirai has a problem of not listening to advice, nepotism, surrounding himself in the comfort of people who will not criticise him and has also shown a total disregard of the MDC constitution in particular and democratic principles in general. He has fallen trap to his own success in opposition and has now become another revolutionary aristocrat who thinks that “nothing meaningful in Zimbabwe’s opposition politics” can be done without him”. He has failed to maintain alliances that the MDC has always had like the NCA and at times even ZCTU because he forgot that MDC is a product of those organisations and not the other way round. The attempt to influence what happens in ZINASU, ZCTU, NCA etc is a very worrying scenario for a party that can one day become the sole governing party. It simply means that during the tenure of MDC labour and student activism may fail to exist independently. His unwillingness to follow the constitution and allow the emergence of another leader is also worrying as it shows that there will be a continued disregard of the rule of law even under his rule. It shows his unwillingness to dictate the pace in the politics of Zimbabwe by occupying space as the true alternative as MDC would have shown a different agenda by doing what ZANU PF has failed to do since 1977; leadership renewal.
Professor Welshman Ncube has repeatedly failed to articulate the real reasons behind the split of the MDC in 2005 with his answers bothering on defensiveness and playing into trivial issues such as his “membership” of the Central Intelligence Organisation. The ghost of that split will continue to haunt him because at the time of the split their camp made the mistake of putting a picture of Morgan Tsvangirai as the real devil of Zimbabwean politics but against the backdrop of “Operation Murambatsvina” that portrayal of Morgan Tsvangirai was laughable even in ZANU PF circles. He has failed to show that there were ideological differences and personality clashes between him and Morgan Tsvangirai and that those differences were unhealthy for the union prompting it to split.
He has failed to tell the public tribunal that MDC would have split even if the issue of the Senate had not come and October 12 2005 was a date for long on the calendar. I personally think he is a good politician who also has his own ambitions but has failed to tell his story clearly. Zimbabweans also know that there can be nothing shocking for a political party to emerge in Zimbabwe that has an agenda which is more radical than ZANU PF. This is what Professor Mutambara wants to do but he seems to be dishonest about it. In the UK the British Nationalist Party is a far right party with views that are more radical than the Tories but it is there and has a good number of supporters.
My conclusion is that the Wiki-Leaks are really bad for American democracy but at least to Zimbabwean leaders they give as an anthropological perspective into own our strengths and weaknesses and Ambassador Dell has criticised almost all the important players in Zimbabwe which found favour with me. He is not God or his second son, but he has enriched the political landscape in our country and we have the chance to work out our weaknesses for the good of everyone in Zimbabwe.
Be Judge!
Julius Sai Mutyambizi-DEWA is the Chairman of Communities Point but writes in his own capacity.
Contact: mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 07401182271 or 07529705413
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Kuwaza skirted the issues raised
By Geoffrey Nyarota: Opinion and Analysis: The Herald
On Tuesday, November 16, The Herald published an article submitted by the deputy chairman of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Mr Charles Kuwaza.
The article was written in response to one written by me and published in the same newspaper on November 12 as a follow-up to an earlier piece also written by me to challenge a story written by British journalist, Jon Swain, and published in The Sunday Times of October 24.
Swain claimed that his article was based on information furnished by two primary sources, Sabina Mugabe, President Mugabe’s late sister, and Senior Assistant Commissioner Cain Chademana, his most trusted bodyguard, who is also late.
Swain claimed to have spoken to other sources at the Central Intelligence Organisation, at the Reser-ve Bank of Zimbabwe and at President’s Gushungo Diary Farm.
Sabina Mugabe and Chademana had curiously both died before Swain wrote his story.
My November 12 article suggested that Swain’s article may not have been anything more than the latest episode in an ongoing battle, pitting the embattled governor of the RBZ, Gideon Gono, against Kuwaza, his deputy chairman.
I wrote the article after I spoke to Kuwaza on Tuesday, November 2, and on Thursday, November 4. The first meeting was held in unusual circumstances, while we sat in the dark in Kuwaza’s car.
He had parked the vehicle behind a building next to the tennis courts at Old Hararians Sports Club in Milton Park. Kuwaza had picked me up in his car from the club’s main entrance, and driven to the dark spot, music blaring on his radio at full blast.
He said this was a security measure.
Before I asked any question or formally introduced myself or explained the purpose of the requested meeting, Kuwaza started to talk non-stop about Gideon Gono and the much reported about goings-on at the Reserve Bank.
Research conducted on the Internet had revealed much infighting at the Reserve Bank between the governor and chairman and his deputy chairman, Kuwaza.
My conversation with Kuwaza that night left me in no doubt that there was bad blood between him and Gono. He said he was particularly angry that Gono had caused his arrest on allegations of fraud at the State Procurement Board, where he is chairman.
My second discussion with Kuwaza was held again in his vehicle. He picked me up from behind his wife’s pharmacy in Belvedere, where he had asked me to wait for him. He parked the vehicle in a far corner behind the Belvedere Shopping Complex where refuse collection vehicles plied their business while we discussed.
Kuwaza had informed me during the first meeting that certain politicians, described by him as his sympathisers who had been angered by Gono’s action in allegedly causing his arrest, had informed Swain that Gono was allegedly having an affair with the First Lady. During the second meeting I asked for the identity of the politicians.
Kuwaza said they belonged to Zanu-PF. I suspected this statement was not true.
In his November 16 article, Kuwaza suggested that my article was "full of lies and distortions".
"Here is what I have mailed Mr Nyarota in response to his article," Kuwaza stated in the article before he proceeded to analyse my article, paragraph by paragraph.
The claim by Kuwaza that he mailed to me his response to my article before he submitted it to The Herald for publication is totally false. I never received any email message from Kuwaza. I don’t believe he knew my e-mail address at the time. He was elusive last Friday when I phoned his office several times while seeking to discuss the issue of the e-mail message which he claims he sent to me.
I gave my e-mail address to Kuwaza’s secretary on Friday. I requested her to pass on to her boss the challenge that he re-send his alleged e-mail message to me or forward it to a third person of his choice.
If Kuwaza re-sends the message to me or forwards it to a third party, as requested, the message will show the date on which the original message was allegedly sent to me.
But then, Kuwaza cannot re-send any message to me because he never sent any e-mail message to me in the first place.
His claim, like a number of other statements he made about me in his article, is a blatant lie.
It is not true that I told Kuwaza that his life was in danger. I did not know Kuwaza until the night I met him at Old Hararians. I informed him truthfully on the phone that I wanted to discuss with him what appeared to be his link to the furnishing of the information used by Swain to craft his article for the Sunday Times issue of October 24.
Kuwaza was so excited by this disclosure that within hours I was sitting with him in his car at the sports club.
I did not know that Kuwaza had been arrested in September, as he claims. I first knew about Kuwaza’s arrest only when he told me about it on the night of our first meeting. I could not have informed Kuwaza that there was any suspicion that Gono was behind this arrest when I did not know about it.
It is Kuwaza who complained biterly about his arrest at the alleged behest of Gono.
Kuwaza stated that his sympathisers, who were politicians, had been angered by Gono’s action and had passed damaging information about Gono on to Swain in retaliation.
When I asked Kuwaza for his opinion of Swain’s October 24 article he stated categorically that the article was "facts, opinions, half-truths, lies, all meshed together to give credence to the story".
I never asked Kuwaza whether the leaking of information to Swain was the result of infighting within Zanu-PF, as he claims. It is Kuwaza who raised the spectre of Zanu-PF, apparently to divert attention from the MDC. Kuwaza realised that he had somehow implicated the MDC when he made the following series of statements:
l That Zanu-PF had fired him from the position of Permanent Secretary for Finance because he was closely linked to the MDC;
l That Finance Minister Tendai Biti had appointed him chairman of the State Procurement Board.
l That Biti had appointed him deputy chairman of the board at the Reserve Bank.
l and, finally, that he played chess with Biti.
Because he had associated himself so closely with the MDC, Kuwaza realised that if he merely stated that his political sympathisers had supplied damaging information to Swain to hit at Gono, I might jump to the conclusion that his political sympathisers were linked to the MDC.
He then stated that the sympathisers were in fact Zanu-PF politicians, adding that Gono had made many enemies within the ranks of Zanu-PF.
During my discussion with Kuwaza on two occasions he never mentioned anything about "the pink Press attempting to elevate ordinary discourse at board level to something newsworthy", as he now claims. This statement is a complete fabrication.
Kuwaza says he never saw my article before I "sold it to the highest bidder".
The truth is that I never offered my article to any bidder. No publication ever paid or offered to pay me for the article. I offered this article for free in the first instance to The Sunday Standard on Friday, November 5. I had previously offered another article on the same subject which appeared in The Standard on October 31. I was not paid for that article either; not that newspapers in Zimbabwe offer life-sustaining rates to the correspondents who submit the articles which they publish.
When the Standard did not publish the article which I submitted on November 5 I offered the article to The Herald and The Zimbabwe Mail, an online publication. The Zimbabwe Mail published the article first and it was then published in The Herald on November 12.
The Zimbabwe Mail never pays for the articles that it publishes. I never discussed any payment for the article when I offered it to the editor of The Herald.
The suggestion by Kuwaza that I offered my article to the highest bidder is, therefore, a malicious falsehood
Kuwaza claims that I approached him while pretending to assist him "but turned out to be the proverbial wolf".
He then rushes to state that he had never met me before. I wonder in what circumstances I would have attempted to assist Kuwaza in these circumstances when he was totally unknown to me.
Kuwaza finally suggests that my journalism should focus on "issues which advance the national agenda".
It is my opinion that it is a matter of national interest if a renowned British journalist relies on fabrications apparently fed to him by an ambitious deputy chairman at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, who is seeking to be appointed governor of the same financial institution through subterfuge and political intervention, as appears to be the case here.
In his article, Kuwaza did not address any of the pertinent issues that I raised in my own articles.
He merely sought to malign me out of spite and anger after I exposed his role in Swain’s October 24 "scoop".
Last Friday, on November 19, I was invited by the National Press Club to participate in a debate on journalism ethics and professionalism at the Quill Club in Harare. During the proceedings two members of the audience angrily took me to task for submitting my article to The Herald for publication. I was taken aback by this. One of them told me after the meeting that he belonged to the MDC.
Since the formation of the MDC in 1999 and more so since the establishment of the government of national unity in 2009, the MDC has protested vehemently that Zimbabwe Newspapers and the ZBC have not provided adequate coverage of political parties or individuals other than Zanu-PF or Zanu-PF aligned.
The MDC has vigorously campaigned for coverage of its affairs in The Herald and on radio and television. In a democratic dispensation all media should provide equal coverage to all political organisations and interests. Yet here I was, being lambasted by an MDC politician for submitting an article to The Herald for publication.
From a different perspective, if the same MDC joined hands in 2009 with Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe's now troubled government of national unity, why can’t I, as an individual, submit an article to be published in the Herald, given that the same article had been rejected by an independent newspaper, The Sunday Standard?
On Tuesday, November 16, The Herald published an article submitted by the deputy chairman of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Mr Charles Kuwaza.
The article was written in response to one written by me and published in the same newspaper on November 12 as a follow-up to an earlier piece also written by me to challenge a story written by British journalist, Jon Swain, and published in The Sunday Times of October 24.
Swain claimed that his article was based on information furnished by two primary sources, Sabina Mugabe, President Mugabe’s late sister, and Senior Assistant Commissioner Cain Chademana, his most trusted bodyguard, who is also late.
Swain claimed to have spoken to other sources at the Central Intelligence Organisation, at the Reser-ve Bank of Zimbabwe and at President’s Gushungo Diary Farm.
Sabina Mugabe and Chademana had curiously both died before Swain wrote his story.
My November 12 article suggested that Swain’s article may not have been anything more than the latest episode in an ongoing battle, pitting the embattled governor of the RBZ, Gideon Gono, against Kuwaza, his deputy chairman.
I wrote the article after I spoke to Kuwaza on Tuesday, November 2, and on Thursday, November 4. The first meeting was held in unusual circumstances, while we sat in the dark in Kuwaza’s car.
He had parked the vehicle behind a building next to the tennis courts at Old Hararians Sports Club in Milton Park. Kuwaza had picked me up in his car from the club’s main entrance, and driven to the dark spot, music blaring on his radio at full blast.
He said this was a security measure.
Before I asked any question or formally introduced myself or explained the purpose of the requested meeting, Kuwaza started to talk non-stop about Gideon Gono and the much reported about goings-on at the Reserve Bank.
Research conducted on the Internet had revealed much infighting at the Reserve Bank between the governor and chairman and his deputy chairman, Kuwaza.
My conversation with Kuwaza that night left me in no doubt that there was bad blood between him and Gono. He said he was particularly angry that Gono had caused his arrest on allegations of fraud at the State Procurement Board, where he is chairman.
My second discussion with Kuwaza was held again in his vehicle. He picked me up from behind his wife’s pharmacy in Belvedere, where he had asked me to wait for him. He parked the vehicle in a far corner behind the Belvedere Shopping Complex where refuse collection vehicles plied their business while we discussed.
Kuwaza had informed me during the first meeting that certain politicians, described by him as his sympathisers who had been angered by Gono’s action in allegedly causing his arrest, had informed Swain that Gono was allegedly having an affair with the First Lady. During the second meeting I asked for the identity of the politicians.
Kuwaza said they belonged to Zanu-PF. I suspected this statement was not true.
In his November 16 article, Kuwaza suggested that my article was "full of lies and distortions".
"Here is what I have mailed Mr Nyarota in response to his article," Kuwaza stated in the article before he proceeded to analyse my article, paragraph by paragraph.
The claim by Kuwaza that he mailed to me his response to my article before he submitted it to The Herald for publication is totally false. I never received any email message from Kuwaza. I don’t believe he knew my e-mail address at the time. He was elusive last Friday when I phoned his office several times while seeking to discuss the issue of the e-mail message which he claims he sent to me.
I gave my e-mail address to Kuwaza’s secretary on Friday. I requested her to pass on to her boss the challenge that he re-send his alleged e-mail message to me or forward it to a third person of his choice.
If Kuwaza re-sends the message to me or forwards it to a third party, as requested, the message will show the date on which the original message was allegedly sent to me.
But then, Kuwaza cannot re-send any message to me because he never sent any e-mail message to me in the first place.
His claim, like a number of other statements he made about me in his article, is a blatant lie.
It is not true that I told Kuwaza that his life was in danger. I did not know Kuwaza until the night I met him at Old Hararians. I informed him truthfully on the phone that I wanted to discuss with him what appeared to be his link to the furnishing of the information used by Swain to craft his article for the Sunday Times issue of October 24.
Kuwaza was so excited by this disclosure that within hours I was sitting with him in his car at the sports club.
I did not know that Kuwaza had been arrested in September, as he claims. I first knew about Kuwaza’s arrest only when he told me about it on the night of our first meeting. I could not have informed Kuwaza that there was any suspicion that Gono was behind this arrest when I did not know about it.
It is Kuwaza who complained biterly about his arrest at the alleged behest of Gono.
Kuwaza stated that his sympathisers, who were politicians, had been angered by Gono’s action and had passed damaging information about Gono on to Swain in retaliation.
When I asked Kuwaza for his opinion of Swain’s October 24 article he stated categorically that the article was "facts, opinions, half-truths, lies, all meshed together to give credence to the story".
I never asked Kuwaza whether the leaking of information to Swain was the result of infighting within Zanu-PF, as he claims. It is Kuwaza who raised the spectre of Zanu-PF, apparently to divert attention from the MDC. Kuwaza realised that he had somehow implicated the MDC when he made the following series of statements:
l That Zanu-PF had fired him from the position of Permanent Secretary for Finance because he was closely linked to the MDC;
l That Finance Minister Tendai Biti had appointed him chairman of the State Procurement Board.
l That Biti had appointed him deputy chairman of the board at the Reserve Bank.
l and, finally, that he played chess with Biti.
Because he had associated himself so closely with the MDC, Kuwaza realised that if he merely stated that his political sympathisers had supplied damaging information to Swain to hit at Gono, I might jump to the conclusion that his political sympathisers were linked to the MDC.
He then stated that the sympathisers were in fact Zanu-PF politicians, adding that Gono had made many enemies within the ranks of Zanu-PF.
During my discussion with Kuwaza on two occasions he never mentioned anything about "the pink Press attempting to elevate ordinary discourse at board level to something newsworthy", as he now claims. This statement is a complete fabrication.
Kuwaza says he never saw my article before I "sold it to the highest bidder".
The truth is that I never offered my article to any bidder. No publication ever paid or offered to pay me for the article. I offered this article for free in the first instance to The Sunday Standard on Friday, November 5. I had previously offered another article on the same subject which appeared in The Standard on October 31. I was not paid for that article either; not that newspapers in Zimbabwe offer life-sustaining rates to the correspondents who submit the articles which they publish.
When the Standard did not publish the article which I submitted on November 5 I offered the article to The Herald and The Zimbabwe Mail, an online publication. The Zimbabwe Mail published the article first and it was then published in The Herald on November 12.
The Zimbabwe Mail never pays for the articles that it publishes. I never discussed any payment for the article when I offered it to the editor of The Herald.
The suggestion by Kuwaza that I offered my article to the highest bidder is, therefore, a malicious falsehood
Kuwaza claims that I approached him while pretending to assist him "but turned out to be the proverbial wolf".
He then rushes to state that he had never met me before. I wonder in what circumstances I would have attempted to assist Kuwaza in these circumstances when he was totally unknown to me.
Kuwaza finally suggests that my journalism should focus on "issues which advance the national agenda".
It is my opinion that it is a matter of national interest if a renowned British journalist relies on fabrications apparently fed to him by an ambitious deputy chairman at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, who is seeking to be appointed governor of the same financial institution through subterfuge and political intervention, as appears to be the case here.
In his article, Kuwaza did not address any of the pertinent issues that I raised in my own articles.
He merely sought to malign me out of spite and anger after I exposed his role in Swain’s October 24 "scoop".
Last Friday, on November 19, I was invited by the National Press Club to participate in a debate on journalism ethics and professionalism at the Quill Club in Harare. During the proceedings two members of the audience angrily took me to task for submitting my article to The Herald for publication. I was taken aback by this. One of them told me after the meeting that he belonged to the MDC.
Since the formation of the MDC in 1999 and more so since the establishment of the government of national unity in 2009, the MDC has protested vehemently that Zimbabwe Newspapers and the ZBC have not provided adequate coverage of political parties or individuals other than Zanu-PF or Zanu-PF aligned.
The MDC has vigorously campaigned for coverage of its affairs in The Herald and on radio and television. In a democratic dispensation all media should provide equal coverage to all political organisations and interests. Yet here I was, being lambasted by an MDC politician for submitting an article to The Herald for publication.
From a different perspective, if the same MDC joined hands in 2009 with Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe's now troubled government of national unity, why can’t I, as an individual, submit an article to be published in the Herald, given that the same article had been rejected by an independent newspaper, The Sunday Standard?
Monday 22 November 2010
Zapu is a party of retrogressive reactionaries
http://www.thestandard.co.zw/
Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:01
By Sibusiso Dlodlo
This article is a synoptical analogy of ZAPU as a new entrant into the
political fray in Zimbabwe. On the one hand, the revival of ZAPU is a
welcome development as it gives the people of Zimbabwe a range of political
parties to support and sympathise with in our quest to achieve multi-party
democracy.
On the other hand, the revival of ZAPU is as ill-fated as it is
inconsequential. It is a desperate attempt by a few individuals that seek to
revive their dead political fortunes.
For starters, ZAPU wants to pretend it is a popular political party that has
the overwhelming support of the people of Matabeleland. Save for Dumiso
Dabengwa and Methuseli Moyo, the president and the spokesperson
respectively, one cannot identify any other serious comrades in the ZAPU
gravy train. It appears ZAPU is a personal project for Dabengwa and his
hangers-on. They seem to regard in high esteem the principle of megaphone
politics that seeks to hoodwink the public that they are acting on behalf of
the masses yet they have no electoral mandate whatever.
The party has shown that it is not as progressive as it wants to portray
itself to the general public. We have it on good authority that the
Dabengwa-led executive cowed people into voting them into power during their
elective congress in August this year by scuttling any form of opposition
before and during the congress. For some of us that was to be expected from
people like Dabengwa and Thenjiwe Lesabe who spent the greater part of their
post-independence political careers in ZANU-PF, a party renowned for its
dirty tricks and callousness.
It is therefore not surprising to hear that disgruntled elements in the
revived ZAPU are pushing for a special congress early next year. We will
keep watching from the sidelines.
ZAPU is in serious need of leadership renewal. Dabengwa is no stranger to
politics being the war veteran that he is. But I am of the strong opinion
that Dabengwa is past his prime and is more of a liability to the party
than anything else. The man is old and tired and will offer nothing to brand
ZAPU as a modern party that appeals to the young and old alike. No wonder
ZAPU congregations appear as if they are a network of old people short of
past time activities. Their gatherings are like a forum for old people
interested in sharing ancient folklore.
What we have in ZAPU is a group of angry people who have a tribal agenda and
are driven by anger and vengeance. I submit that there is no development
under the sun that a bunch of emotional people, equally led by a frustrated
leadership, will ever bring to the people of Matabeleland.
The strategy that ZAPU wants to employ of capitalising on the frustrations
of the people of Matabeleland will not yield any significant resultsl. MDC-M
is a classic example of a party that got a rude awakening when they thought
Ndebele votes were all but theirs during the 2008 general elections.
A tribal agenda, worse still of a minority, will not steer development. Let
people be aware of the real nature of ZAPU, that it is a small retrogressive
clique of angry reactionaries who will never test the echelons of power.
About the Author
Sibusiso Dlodlo is a political commentator based in Bulawayo.
sibusiso.dlodlo@gmail.com
This article first appeared in The Standard
Sunday, 21 November 2010 14:01
By Sibusiso Dlodlo
This article is a synoptical analogy of ZAPU as a new entrant into the
political fray in Zimbabwe. On the one hand, the revival of ZAPU is a
welcome development as it gives the people of Zimbabwe a range of political
parties to support and sympathise with in our quest to achieve multi-party
democracy.
On the other hand, the revival of ZAPU is as ill-fated as it is
inconsequential. It is a desperate attempt by a few individuals that seek to
revive their dead political fortunes.
For starters, ZAPU wants to pretend it is a popular political party that has
the overwhelming support of the people of Matabeleland. Save for Dumiso
Dabengwa and Methuseli Moyo, the president and the spokesperson
respectively, one cannot identify any other serious comrades in the ZAPU
gravy train. It appears ZAPU is a personal project for Dabengwa and his
hangers-on. They seem to regard in high esteem the principle of megaphone
politics that seeks to hoodwink the public that they are acting on behalf of
the masses yet they have no electoral mandate whatever.
The party has shown that it is not as progressive as it wants to portray
itself to the general public. We have it on good authority that the
Dabengwa-led executive cowed people into voting them into power during their
elective congress in August this year by scuttling any form of opposition
before and during the congress. For some of us that was to be expected from
people like Dabengwa and Thenjiwe Lesabe who spent the greater part of their
post-independence political careers in ZANU-PF, a party renowned for its
dirty tricks and callousness.
It is therefore not surprising to hear that disgruntled elements in the
revived ZAPU are pushing for a special congress early next year. We will
keep watching from the sidelines.
ZAPU is in serious need of leadership renewal. Dabengwa is no stranger to
politics being the war veteran that he is. But I am of the strong opinion
that Dabengwa is past his prime and is more of a liability to the party
than anything else. The man is old and tired and will offer nothing to brand
ZAPU as a modern party that appeals to the young and old alike. No wonder
ZAPU congregations appear as if they are a network of old people short of
past time activities. Their gatherings are like a forum for old people
interested in sharing ancient folklore.
What we have in ZAPU is a group of angry people who have a tribal agenda and
are driven by anger and vengeance. I submit that there is no development
under the sun that a bunch of emotional people, equally led by a frustrated
leadership, will ever bring to the people of Matabeleland.
The strategy that ZAPU wants to employ of capitalising on the frustrations
of the people of Matabeleland will not yield any significant resultsl. MDC-M
is a classic example of a party that got a rude awakening when they thought
Ndebele votes were all but theirs during the 2008 general elections.
A tribal agenda, worse still of a minority, will not steer development. Let
people be aware of the real nature of ZAPU, that it is a small retrogressive
clique of angry reactionaries who will never test the echelons of power.
About the Author
Sibusiso Dlodlo is a political commentator based in Bulawayo.
sibusiso.dlodlo@gmail.com
This article first appeared in The Standard
Tuesday 16 November 2010
FSA recommends changes to mortgage sales to achieve a sustainable mortgage market
Sheila Nicoll
This next step of the Mortgage Market Review recognises the importance of the intermediary and ensuring the quality of every mortgage sale.
.
FSA/PN/164/2010
16 November 2010
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today outlined proposals which focus on enhancing the mortgage sales process, the role of intermediaries and improving disclosure of information for customers.
The consultation builds on the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review to date, and a key element is requiring that those selling mortgages ensure that each one sold is ‘appropriate’ for the customer’s needs and circumstances, therefore clarifying the role of the mortgage seller (both intermediary and branch based).
This follows earlier proposals by the FSA which looked at responsible lending and the role of the lender and the customer, and which set out that the responsibility to assess whether a customer can afford a mortgage ultimately lies with the lender.
In addition key proposals include:
•Replacing the obligation to issue an Initial Disclosure Document to the customer with requirements to clearly and prominently disclose key information about how the intermediary will be paid and the service they offer;
•Changing the trigger points for providing the Key Facts Illustration to minimise information overload on consumers and reduce burdens on firms;
•A requirement for all individuals that sell mortgages to hold a relevant mortgage qualification ensuring appropriate professional standards across all sales;
•Replacing the existing labels used to describe the firm’s service with the Retail Distribution Review’s ‘independent’ and ‘restricted’ labels; and
•Requiring firms to disclose to customers whether they will consider deals that can only be obtained directly from a lender.
Sheila Nicoll, the FSA’s director of conduct policy, said:
"This next step of the Mortgage Market Review recognises the importance of the intermediary and ensuring the quality of every mortgage sale. It also indicates how the intermediary and other sales staff fit into our vision of a sustainable mortgage market that works well for consumers.
By clarifying the role and responsibility of mortgage sellers, we are removing the blurring that could take place between the role of seller and lender."
The FSA has published the above as the Consultation Paper forms the third follow up to the Mortgage Market Review discussion paper published in October 2009. Consultation on these proposals will close on 25 February 2011.
The FSA's consumer research suggests that disclosure documents were not being used as originally intended.
The above report is part of what the FSA publishes as part their role to regulate the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.
Source Financial Services Authority and edditional comments by The Royalty Dimensions
This next step of the Mortgage Market Review recognises the importance of the intermediary and ensuring the quality of every mortgage sale.
.
FSA/PN/164/2010
16 November 2010
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today outlined proposals which focus on enhancing the mortgage sales process, the role of intermediaries and improving disclosure of information for customers.
The consultation builds on the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review to date, and a key element is requiring that those selling mortgages ensure that each one sold is ‘appropriate’ for the customer’s needs and circumstances, therefore clarifying the role of the mortgage seller (both intermediary and branch based).
This follows earlier proposals by the FSA which looked at responsible lending and the role of the lender and the customer, and which set out that the responsibility to assess whether a customer can afford a mortgage ultimately lies with the lender.
In addition key proposals include:
•Replacing the obligation to issue an Initial Disclosure Document to the customer with requirements to clearly and prominently disclose key information about how the intermediary will be paid and the service they offer;
•Changing the trigger points for providing the Key Facts Illustration to minimise information overload on consumers and reduce burdens on firms;
•A requirement for all individuals that sell mortgages to hold a relevant mortgage qualification ensuring appropriate professional standards across all sales;
•Replacing the existing labels used to describe the firm’s service with the Retail Distribution Review’s ‘independent’ and ‘restricted’ labels; and
•Requiring firms to disclose to customers whether they will consider deals that can only be obtained directly from a lender.
Sheila Nicoll, the FSA’s director of conduct policy, said:
"This next step of the Mortgage Market Review recognises the importance of the intermediary and ensuring the quality of every mortgage sale. It also indicates how the intermediary and other sales staff fit into our vision of a sustainable mortgage market that works well for consumers.
By clarifying the role and responsibility of mortgage sellers, we are removing the blurring that could take place between the role of seller and lender."
The FSA has published the above as the Consultation Paper forms the third follow up to the Mortgage Market Review discussion paper published in October 2009. Consultation on these proposals will close on 25 February 2011.
The FSA's consumer research suggests that disclosure documents were not being used as originally intended.
The above report is part of what the FSA publishes as part their role to regulate the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; fighting financial crime; and contributing to the protection and enhancement of the stability of the UK financial system.
Source Financial Services Authority and edditional comments by The Royalty Dimensions
AND THE CIRCUS CONTINUES AS...........................
Drama in Cabinet
BRIAN MANGWENDE
There was drama ahead of the usual Tuesday Cabinet meetings on Tuesday when security agents, whether from overzealousness or instructions, stopped and attempted to frisk deputy prime ministers Thokozani Khupe and Arthur Mutambara.
Impeccable sources said Khupe (MDC-T) objected and remonstrated most vehemently with the “inexorable and unyielding” agents and ended up walking away from the entrance to the Cabinet.
But the melodramatic Mutambara of the splinter group of the mainstream MDC would have none of it, they said.
He reportedly not only protested, but allegedly bulldozed his way in, leaving the agents stunned and mortified.
Once Mutambara has made up his mind on something, he is unstoppable, a source said.
Realising that the former student activist and robotics professor had blown a big hole in their mesh, the sources said the security agents could only but drop their jaws.
Sources said Khupe turned her back on the agents and returned to her office huffing and puffing only to be recalled and she obliged.
“When Khupe and Mutambara wanted to enter Cabinet, they were stopped by security agents so that they could be searched, but they protested,” sources said.
“They queried why they should be searched yet President Robert Mugabe was not subjected to the same treatment. This search business started last week but is selective. The two argued that they are senior political leaders with high stakes in the Global Political Agreement (GPA) therefore should not be subjected to this type of humiliation.”
CONTINUES BELOW
Contacted for comment by NewsDay, an official in Khupe’s office said:
“She was stopped because they wanted to search her, but she refused. However, she has since returned and is now attending Cabinet.”
It is not clear why suddenly these top officials have to be frisked or what threat they are suspected to pose.
Sources said one of the three principals is not searched and the other two say what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and they will not yield to searches if the same does not apply to their counterpart.
It was not clear whether ministers were also subjected to security searches ahead of Cabinet meetings, but at one point when Nicholas Goche was Minister of State Security that was the norm before the consummation of the inclusive government.
The incident occurred when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who has not been present at a number of Cabinet meetings for a variety of reasons, was in Buhera attending the funeral of a relative identified only as Makuvise.
The incident comes at a time ministers have been accused of leaking Cabinet deliberations to the media and warned of arrest.
The debacle comes hard on the heels of renewed acrimony between long–time arch-rivals President Mugabe and Tsvangirai over the former’s so–called intransigence by disrespecting the porous GPA which both parties want ripped down the middle.
Although both men signed the controversial coalition agreement which has brought relative peace and economic stability to the country, they now regret the marriage of convenience.
As the cookie crumbles, the protagonists say they want elections next year to end the chaos and acrimony prevailing in the coalition.
While President Mugabe and his inner cabal, which is under sanctions for alleged human and property rights violations, are adamant the polls will be held next year come hell come thunder, Tsvangirai has threatened to pull out if the environment is not conducive for free and fair elections.
This article first appeared in the NewsDay
BRIAN MANGWENDE
There was drama ahead of the usual Tuesday Cabinet meetings on Tuesday when security agents, whether from overzealousness or instructions, stopped and attempted to frisk deputy prime ministers Thokozani Khupe and Arthur Mutambara.
Impeccable sources said Khupe (MDC-T) objected and remonstrated most vehemently with the “inexorable and unyielding” agents and ended up walking away from the entrance to the Cabinet.
But the melodramatic Mutambara of the splinter group of the mainstream MDC would have none of it, they said.
He reportedly not only protested, but allegedly bulldozed his way in, leaving the agents stunned and mortified.
Once Mutambara has made up his mind on something, he is unstoppable, a source said.
Realising that the former student activist and robotics professor had blown a big hole in their mesh, the sources said the security agents could only but drop their jaws.
Sources said Khupe turned her back on the agents and returned to her office huffing and puffing only to be recalled and she obliged.
“When Khupe and Mutambara wanted to enter Cabinet, they were stopped by security agents so that they could be searched, but they protested,” sources said.
“They queried why they should be searched yet President Robert Mugabe was not subjected to the same treatment. This search business started last week but is selective. The two argued that they are senior political leaders with high stakes in the Global Political Agreement (GPA) therefore should not be subjected to this type of humiliation.”
CONTINUES BELOW
Contacted for comment by NewsDay, an official in Khupe’s office said:
“She was stopped because they wanted to search her, but she refused. However, she has since returned and is now attending Cabinet.”
It is not clear why suddenly these top officials have to be frisked or what threat they are suspected to pose.
Sources said one of the three principals is not searched and the other two say what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and they will not yield to searches if the same does not apply to their counterpart.
It was not clear whether ministers were also subjected to security searches ahead of Cabinet meetings, but at one point when Nicholas Goche was Minister of State Security that was the norm before the consummation of the inclusive government.
The incident occurred when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, who has not been present at a number of Cabinet meetings for a variety of reasons, was in Buhera attending the funeral of a relative identified only as Makuvise.
The incident comes at a time ministers have been accused of leaking Cabinet deliberations to the media and warned of arrest.
The debacle comes hard on the heels of renewed acrimony between long–time arch-rivals President Mugabe and Tsvangirai over the former’s so–called intransigence by disrespecting the porous GPA which both parties want ripped down the middle.
Although both men signed the controversial coalition agreement which has brought relative peace and economic stability to the country, they now regret the marriage of convenience.
As the cookie crumbles, the protagonists say they want elections next year to end the chaos and acrimony prevailing in the coalition.
While President Mugabe and his inner cabal, which is under sanctions for alleged human and property rights violations, are adamant the polls will be held next year come hell come thunder, Tsvangirai has threatened to pull out if the environment is not conducive for free and fair elections.
This article first appeared in the NewsDay
Sunday 7 November 2010
COMMUNITIES POINT COMMENT ON THE STATEMENT OF ANC SECRETARY GENERAL GWEDE MANTASHE
BY THE CHAIRMAN: JULIUS MUTYAMBIZI-DEWA
Communities Point is disturbed by the recent reckless statement of the African National Congress Comrade Gwede Manthashe in which he all but stated that COSATU, Zimbabwe’s main opposition the Movement for Democratic Change and Zambia’s ruling party Movement for Multi-Party Democracy are agents of what he termed “regime change”: http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-3738-COSATU+plotting+regime+change+ANC/news.aspx
In trying to qualify his statement with his attack on ANC own partner Congress of South African Trade Unions, Comrade Manthashe seemed to operate under the unfortunate illusion that opposition to former liberation movements is unheard of and that post-liberation political opposition derives from nudging by the West. While Communities Point is not MDC or Zambia’s MMD and will therefore not speak for them we are worried that Africa’s oldest and therefore supposedly the most mature political party is failing to be the guiding light in proffering an African political system that will be progressive and that does not promote the segmentation of its polity into the unnecessary discourses that we have seen playing in Zimbabwe where a genuine opposition has been called names unnecessarily.
The identities of the leadership of the three formations that call themselves MDC are MDC-T, MDC and MDC-99 and these are led respectively by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, Professor Arthur Mutambara and Mr Job Sikhala all of whom were not imported from any foreign country but are all nationals of the country. Mr Tsvangirai was born in Buhera which is in the Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe and he is a former Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the largest Zimbabwean trade union and a one time ally of ZANU PF. Professor Mutambara also hails from Manicaland Province and is a former student leader. Mr Job Sikhala was born in Gutu in Masvingo Province which is also in Zimbabwe and he is a former student leader. Not only is Comrade Manthashe’s allegation of “regime change” agenda inaccurate because it lacks substance but it is mischievous as it was made by a person who either does not have a clue of where Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces are or it is a deliberate ploy to mislead his audience into believing that there is an alien invasion in Zimbabwe which is of course very false.
THE HEGEMONIC ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA
The utterances are further disturbing given the mediation role that South Africa is playing in Zimbabwe. It will be difficult for processes in which President Zuma is the mediator to be free from public scrutiny as the Secretary General of his party seems to be saying that ANC will do all it can to prevent the democratic will of Zimbabweans in its own bid to prevent “regime change” by COSATU. We are further disturbed by the term “regime change” in the context of democracy. We believe that the business of opposition political parties is to win elections and change governments, in other words the obvious agenda of opposition political parties has always been regime change. We are therefore perturbed at the attempts by the ANC Secretary General to criminalise opposition parties in Zimbabwe and worse still to criminalise Zambia’s ruling party.
South Africa is clearly confused about its responsibilities as the political and economic hegemony on the African continent. In modern politics that role is not prescriptive but mediatory and taking sides as what the ANC Secretary General seems keen on doing will not show South Africa in good light. It is difficult to understand why the same ANC that allows a thriving opposition in its own country and which has even gone to the extent of entering into an electoral pact by the architects of apartheid, the National Party, and which even governed with apartheid era President de Klerk as its Vice President does not wish the same for Zimbabwe and Zambia.
The hypocrisy in that is so clear because Zimbabweans also want the same racial harmony that South Africans enjoy and all they asked for is for real democracy to emerge. Communities Point is led by people whose legacies are in the liberation struggle with our parents, brothers and sisters having taken part in the liberation of the country. We believe the same applies to most people in MDC. The attempt to paint opponents of ZANU PF with exclusivity is irresponsible because the main judgment against ZANU PF is by Zimbabweans since they are the ones that have been affected by positively or negatively by its governance. The electorate that voted ZANU into power in 1980 is the same Zimbabwean electorate that voted overwhelmingly against it in 2008 and the statement of the ANC serves only to extend the falsehoods we have heard repeatedly from ZANU PF.
AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY
We now call upon Comrade Manthashe and the ANC to retract his statement as it all but shows that where Zimbabwe is concerned, ANC and South Africa have a side and the three MDCs and Zimbabweans can only trust them at their own peril. Furthermore we find the ANC’s attitude on the ruling party in Zambia unacceptable and tantamount to interference in the sovereign matters of a member of SADC and may qualify not as “regime change” but as a clear threat on the sovereignty of Zambia. This will be aggressive foreign policy because it disrespects the manifest will of the people Zimbabwe and Zambia by questioning their choices of government and trying to impose governments of South Africa’s and ANC’s choice. Such a development is clearly unacceptable.
www.communitiespoint.com or mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or Julius.mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 00447529705413
cc Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front
Zimbabwe African People’s Union
Movement for Democratic Change- led by Morgan Tsvangirai
Movement for Democratic Change led by Arthur Mutambara
Movement for Multi-Party Democracy- Zambia
Movement for Democratic Change-99
Southern African Development Community
Communities Point is disturbed by the recent reckless statement of the African National Congress Comrade Gwede Manthashe in which he all but stated that COSATU, Zimbabwe’s main opposition the Movement for Democratic Change and Zambia’s ruling party Movement for Multi-Party Democracy are agents of what he termed “regime change”: http://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-3738-COSATU+plotting+regime+change+ANC/news.aspx
In trying to qualify his statement with his attack on ANC own partner Congress of South African Trade Unions, Comrade Manthashe seemed to operate under the unfortunate illusion that opposition to former liberation movements is unheard of and that post-liberation political opposition derives from nudging by the West. While Communities Point is not MDC or Zambia’s MMD and will therefore not speak for them we are worried that Africa’s oldest and therefore supposedly the most mature political party is failing to be the guiding light in proffering an African political system that will be progressive and that does not promote the segmentation of its polity into the unnecessary discourses that we have seen playing in Zimbabwe where a genuine opposition has been called names unnecessarily.
The identities of the leadership of the three formations that call themselves MDC are MDC-T, MDC and MDC-99 and these are led respectively by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, Professor Arthur Mutambara and Mr Job Sikhala all of whom were not imported from any foreign country but are all nationals of the country. Mr Tsvangirai was born in Buhera which is in the Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe and he is a former Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the largest Zimbabwean trade union and a one time ally of ZANU PF. Professor Mutambara also hails from Manicaland Province and is a former student leader. Mr Job Sikhala was born in Gutu in Masvingo Province which is also in Zimbabwe and he is a former student leader. Not only is Comrade Manthashe’s allegation of “regime change” agenda inaccurate because it lacks substance but it is mischievous as it was made by a person who either does not have a clue of where Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces are or it is a deliberate ploy to mislead his audience into believing that there is an alien invasion in Zimbabwe which is of course very false.
THE HEGEMONIC ROLE OF SOUTH AFRICA
The utterances are further disturbing given the mediation role that South Africa is playing in Zimbabwe. It will be difficult for processes in which President Zuma is the mediator to be free from public scrutiny as the Secretary General of his party seems to be saying that ANC will do all it can to prevent the democratic will of Zimbabweans in its own bid to prevent “regime change” by COSATU. We are further disturbed by the term “regime change” in the context of democracy. We believe that the business of opposition political parties is to win elections and change governments, in other words the obvious agenda of opposition political parties has always been regime change. We are therefore perturbed at the attempts by the ANC Secretary General to criminalise opposition parties in Zimbabwe and worse still to criminalise Zambia’s ruling party.
South Africa is clearly confused about its responsibilities as the political and economic hegemony on the African continent. In modern politics that role is not prescriptive but mediatory and taking sides as what the ANC Secretary General seems keen on doing will not show South Africa in good light. It is difficult to understand why the same ANC that allows a thriving opposition in its own country and which has even gone to the extent of entering into an electoral pact by the architects of apartheid, the National Party, and which even governed with apartheid era President de Klerk as its Vice President does not wish the same for Zimbabwe and Zambia.
The hypocrisy in that is so clear because Zimbabweans also want the same racial harmony that South Africans enjoy and all they asked for is for real democracy to emerge. Communities Point is led by people whose legacies are in the liberation struggle with our parents, brothers and sisters having taken part in the liberation of the country. We believe the same applies to most people in MDC. The attempt to paint opponents of ZANU PF with exclusivity is irresponsible because the main judgment against ZANU PF is by Zimbabweans since they are the ones that have been affected by positively or negatively by its governance. The electorate that voted ZANU into power in 1980 is the same Zimbabwean electorate that voted overwhelmingly against it in 2008 and the statement of the ANC serves only to extend the falsehoods we have heard repeatedly from ZANU PF.
AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICY
We now call upon Comrade Manthashe and the ANC to retract his statement as it all but shows that where Zimbabwe is concerned, ANC and South Africa have a side and the three MDCs and Zimbabweans can only trust them at their own peril. Furthermore we find the ANC’s attitude on the ruling party in Zambia unacceptable and tantamount to interference in the sovereign matters of a member of SADC and may qualify not as “regime change” but as a clear threat on the sovereignty of Zambia. This will be aggressive foreign policy because it disrespects the manifest will of the people Zimbabwe and Zambia by questioning their choices of government and trying to impose governments of South Africa’s and ANC’s choice. Such a development is clearly unacceptable.
www.communitiespoint.com or mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or Julius.mutyambizidewa@yahoo.co.uk or 00447529705413
cc Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front
Zimbabwe African People’s Union
Movement for Democratic Change- led by Morgan Tsvangirai
Movement for Democratic Change led by Arthur Mutambara
Movement for Multi-Party Democracy- Zambia
Movement for Democratic Change-99
Southern African Development Community
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Phillip Chiyangwa chickens out
By Staff Reporter
Tuesday, 02 November 2010 16:08
HARARE - Harare mayor Muchadeyi Masunda and eight Harare City councillors
were Tuesday cleared of the criminal defamation charges they were facing
after the complainant, controversial Harare businessman, Phillip Chiyangwa
withdrew the charges.
Chiyangwa told Harare magistrate Memory Chigwaza on Tuesday that he was
withdrawing the case due to changed circumstances from the time he reported
the matter to the police and now.
The former Rhodesian policeman-turned-businessman and politician did not
explain the changed circumstances although in the past he has announced in
the media that he struck a deal with the councillors and the mayor.
Masunda and the eight councillors were arrested after a special council
committee investigating the theft of vast tracts of prime land in Harare
implicated Chiyangwa and the Minister of Local Government Ignatius Chombo.
In the report, council resolved that it would take back all the land
acquired by the duo as prescribed in the Urban Councils Act and also
resolved to report the matter to the police.
However, police never took action and instead, it is the councillors who
were arrested. The journalists who exposed the scandal were also
interrogated by police from the notorious Law and Order Section but due to
lack of evidence, they were later roped in as state witnesses.
Councillors who spoke to the Daily News soon after the court case said they
were not aware why Chiyangwa suddenly decided to withdraw the case saying
they wondered why they were dragged to court in the first place.
“Maybe he is now aware that his case is so weak he cannot stand the heat. We
were ready to go all the way with him in court. Our resolution remains the
same – council has to repossess all its land which was taken away improperly
by these well connected people. Also we resolved that those who stole
council land must be arrested.
“As councillors, we are empowered by the Urban Councils Act to set up
special committees to investigate such anomalies like the theft of land from
council. The Act also protects us from being held liable for the outcome of
our investigations.
“Chiyangwa was supposed to have been advised by his lawyers of this but
somehow they did not. It’s now up to him to take it up with his lawyers.
From here, we are going to hold an emergency meeting to come out with
strategies to recover council land improperly acquired by different
individuals in society,” said the councillor who refused to be identified.
The councillors refuted reports that they had reached a mutual agreement
with Chiyangwa resulting in him withdrawing charges. They said they would
proceed to implement the recommendations of the special council report.
Chiyangwa’s woes worsened four months ago when government acquired one of
the farms he had subdivided into residential stands. He had reportedly sold
some of the residential stands to companies and individuals.
This article first appeared in The Daily News
Tuesday, 02 November 2010 16:08
HARARE - Harare mayor Muchadeyi Masunda and eight Harare City councillors
were Tuesday cleared of the criminal defamation charges they were facing
after the complainant, controversial Harare businessman, Phillip Chiyangwa
withdrew the charges.
Chiyangwa told Harare magistrate Memory Chigwaza on Tuesday that he was
withdrawing the case due to changed circumstances from the time he reported
the matter to the police and now.
The former Rhodesian policeman-turned-businessman and politician did not
explain the changed circumstances although in the past he has announced in
the media that he struck a deal with the councillors and the mayor.
Masunda and the eight councillors were arrested after a special council
committee investigating the theft of vast tracts of prime land in Harare
implicated Chiyangwa and the Minister of Local Government Ignatius Chombo.
In the report, council resolved that it would take back all the land
acquired by the duo as prescribed in the Urban Councils Act and also
resolved to report the matter to the police.
However, police never took action and instead, it is the councillors who
were arrested. The journalists who exposed the scandal were also
interrogated by police from the notorious Law and Order Section but due to
lack of evidence, they were later roped in as state witnesses.
Councillors who spoke to the Daily News soon after the court case said they
were not aware why Chiyangwa suddenly decided to withdraw the case saying
they wondered why they were dragged to court in the first place.
“Maybe he is now aware that his case is so weak he cannot stand the heat. We
were ready to go all the way with him in court. Our resolution remains the
same – council has to repossess all its land which was taken away improperly
by these well connected people. Also we resolved that those who stole
council land must be arrested.
“As councillors, we are empowered by the Urban Councils Act to set up
special committees to investigate such anomalies like the theft of land from
council. The Act also protects us from being held liable for the outcome of
our investigations.
“Chiyangwa was supposed to have been advised by his lawyers of this but
somehow they did not. It’s now up to him to take it up with his lawyers.
From here, we are going to hold an emergency meeting to come out with
strategies to recover council land improperly acquired by different
individuals in society,” said the councillor who refused to be identified.
The councillors refuted reports that they had reached a mutual agreement
with Chiyangwa resulting in him withdrawing charges. They said they would
proceed to implement the recommendations of the special council report.
Chiyangwa’s woes worsened four months ago when government acquired one of
the farms he had subdivided into residential stands. He had reportedly sold
some of the residential stands to companies and individuals.
This article first appeared in The Daily News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)