The South African government’s plan to <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2018-07-31-anc-to-change-constitution-to-expropriate-land-without-compensation/">change the constitution</a> to mention land expropriation without compensation could, ironically, end up strengthening the property rights on which investment depends.
Pressure to change the Constitution to allow the government to expropriate land without compensation is currently the country’s most contentious issue. Supporters insist that the measure is essential to end racial land ownership patterns which continue to favour whites a quarter century after the end of apartheid. Critics insist that this will threaten property rights and choke off investment.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has now announced that the governing African National Congress will support a change to the constitution’s property clause. This was greeted with predictable <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Markets/Currencies/big-blow-for-rand-economy-as-anc-set-to-change-constitution-on-land-20180801">anxiety</a> among pro-business commentators. But their fear that the change will weaken property rights seems misplaced. To see why, we must look at what property rights are, what the constitution says and what Ramaphosa and the ANC leadership may have in mind.
Much of the fear seems based on a view of property rights which sounds credible but does not describe reality in market economies. It sees property rights as the right to do whatever you like with what you own. The philosopher <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Property-Mainstream-Positions-C-B-MacPherson/dp/0802063365">CB MacPherson</a> pointed out four decades ago that this is not how property was understood until fairly recently, and not how property rights actually operate.
There is no unlimited right to property anywhere. People who own homes cannot use them to make banned substances or to fire missiles at neighbours. People who own factories cannot use them to enslave labourers or to pump poisons into the air and water. If owners ignore these rules, they will be forced to give up some of their property. Some might even lose the property – think of restaurant owners whose businesses are closed down by health authorities to protect consumers.
None of this is inconsistent with a market economy. On the contrary, these rules are essential to markets. A good analogy is a set of traffic lights. They limit what car and truck owners can do with their property, but they are essential to keeping the property safe.
The property rights of owners are, therefore, strong enough to allow them to invest with confidence when they know what the rules are which decide whether they keep their property.
Certainty is the key – not a blank cheque.
<h2>The Constitution</h2>
Section 25 of the South African Constitution, which is often held up by friends and foes as a cast-iron guarantee of property rights, is nothing of the sort. It does say the state can expropriate property only if it pays compensation and lists criteria which courts must take into account when deciding compensation. But clause (8) says:
<blockquote>No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures… to redress the results of past racial discrimination</blockquote>
That’s if it complies with Section 36(1) which says the measure must be:
<blockquote>reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.</blockquote>
So the Section does allow expropriation without compensation – but the wording spelling out when it is allowed is vague. If the government were to test this in court, different judges would inevitably come to different conclusions. This gives owners no certainty and so they don’t know whether their property is safe.
If the constitution is changed to make clear which property may be expropriated without compensation, property rights would be stronger because it would be clear to owners whether their property is safe and what to do to keep it that way.
This is what Ramaphosa and his party say they have in mind. His announcement did not say the constitution should be changed to allow expropriation without compensation – he said that it already does this. The aim, he said, was a clause which “outlines more clearly the conditions under which” land can be expropriated without compensation – in other words, to provide the clarity the current clause lacks.
If he makes good on his promise, the effect will be to strengthen property rights by making it much clearer when the state can take land without compensation. The wording of the clause will be crucial – if it’s too vague and allows the state too much latitude, it will not strengthen property rights. But it’s unlikely that it will seriously threaten these rights because this would place the property of every home-owning ANC voter at risk.
<h2>Ramaphosa’s change of view</h2>
But, whatever the effect of this particular change, a look at why Ramaphosa made the announcement shows that the right to property in South Africa will be challenged until and unless inequality and economic exclusion are tackled far more vigorously than they are now.
He clearly did not want to change the constitution. After a previous ANC summit on land issues, in May, it insisted that it would not change the constitution. It would, rather, pass an <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/politics/2018-05-22-anc-may-bolster-bill--for-land-seizures-without-compensation/">Expropriation Bill</a> and test whether the land redistribution it planned was possible within the current wording.
His <a href="https://probonomatters.co.za/2018/08/ramaphosa-our-people-want-the-constitution-be-more-explicit-about-expropriation-of-land-without-compensation/">announcement</a> this week sounded reluctant: he said that the current constitutional wording does allow expropriation without compensation and then insisted on the need to change it – there was no logical connection between the two.
This strongly suggests that he was forced to change position. Since the change came after a meeting called by the ANC’s National Executive Committee, it was surely pressure from this body which forced a change. This is confirmed by a <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2018-08-02-anc-aims-for-explicit-clarity-in-land-law/">report</a> claiming that he shifted because the faction within the National Executive Committee which supports former president Jacob Zuma is using the land issue to embarrass him and his faction.
It’s easy to see why Ramaphosa and his allies had no answer to this. Inequality and economic exclusion remain deeply entrenched – the well-off are no longer all white but the poor are still almost all black.
Many black professionals and business people believe the economy is still controlled by the white minority. Given all this, no politician whose support base is overwhelmingly black can deny the need for change without facing the same ridicule as Congress of the People leader <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2018-07-12-whites-bought-their-land-says-cope-leader-mosiuoa-lekota/">Mosiuoa Lekota</a>, whose opposition to land expropriation has politically isolated him .
<h2>Realities need to change</h2>
South African economic realities mean that rejecting economic change is simply not an option for politicians who seek a large black support base. It will be hard for them to insist on strong safeguards for property when many of their voters do not own any.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100979/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />The obvious way to change this is to change these realities – to begin to negotiate economic changes which will open the mainstream economy to millions who now languish on its fringes while securing property rights for all.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steven-friedman-297963">Steven Friedman</a>, Professor of Political Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-johannesburg-1275">University of Johannesburg</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/changes-to-the-constitution-may-boost-not-weaken-south-african-property-rights-100979">original article</a>.

Why South Africa’s plans to change constitution by expropriating land without compensation could strengthen property rights

By Gary van Staden, Senior Political Analyst at NKC African Economics
President Cyril Ramaphosa on Tuesday, July 31, took a leaf form his predecessor’s play book and sprung a late-night surprise on the nation with the announcement that the constitution would be amended to facilitate land expropriation without compensation, rendering futile any further discussion and representations on the issue.
It was a legalistic, populist political gambit that merely reinforces the belief that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) has no unclouded vision of where it wants to go but is determined to go there anyway.
The decision taken at the ANC’s two-day National Executive Committee (NEC) lekgotla was apparently informed by the views expressed at the ongoing hearings on land taking place across the country and headed by Parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee.
The fact that the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) voiced the view in favour of expropriation without compensation the most loudly spooked the ANC NEC and led to what is a premature decision.
The decision to amend the constitution to facilitate something the constitution already allows for was explained as a need to allow for the “explicit” expropriation of land without compensation.
Local media reported that Mr Ramaphosa said it had become “patently clear that our people want the constitution be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation, as demonstrated in the public hearings. The lekgotla reaffirmed its position that a comprehensive land reform programme that enables equitable access to land will unlock economic growth by bringing more land in South Africa to full use and [will] enable the productive participation of millions more South Africans in the economy.”
It would be difficult to find a reasonable South African who would deny the urgent and necessary need for land reform, but such a reasonable person would also want to see the plan to understand the strategy and policy framework that would guide such reform in order to ensure that it would succeed in its mission of empowering the dispossessed and unlocking economic potential.
What they would have seen on Tuesday night was an ANC terrified that the EFF was going to stake a leadership claim on the issue of land redistribution and that was politically unpalatable.
So, we were treated to another dose of populist rhetoric with no clear answers or even a hint to the critical questions of what land, where, how, for whom under what policy and regulatory environments, and with what predetermined outcomes.
While it would be reasonable once again to accept that such details and agendas and policy frameworks could not be explored at Tuesday night’s late briefing, there is a real concern that these details, agendas and policy guidelines do not in fact exist and that the detailed issues of land redistribution and the myriad problems that the whole saga brings to the fore are seriously lagging electoral concerns.
There are several institutions and NGOs who have done sterling and valuable work on the ‘backstage’ issues, problems and complexities of a serious land reform programme that would address the real problems and facilitate real solutions without political grandstanding and empty rhetoric.
These institutions deal with key aspects of a land reform programme and offer various scenarios for taking the entire process forward, but these solutions do not always carry the electoral windfall political parties are seeking to tap into.
There is broad agreement among those organisations serious about land reform that constitutional amendments are not required to facilitate the process, but this detailed practical set of policy initiatives is far less sexy than political posturing on electoral platforms and the late, late press show.
The problem is that the consequences of these press shows are often dire and, given the lack of any context or any reasonable framework in which to place the dramatic announcements, inevitably lead to negative financial and economic consequences and undermine confidence.
There was a chance here for a successful land reform programme that would involve both benefit to our people and a growth of investor confidence in how well the issue was managed. That outcome is now off the table.

Op-Ed: South Africa’s rush into populist politics in a policy vacuum

<figure><img decoding="async" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/227400/original/file-20180712-27045-moi0if.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="File 20180712 27045 moi0if.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1" /><figcaption>Shutterstock
</figcaption></figure>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sharon-fonn-162995">Sharon Fonn</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-witwatersrand-894">University of the Witwatersrand</a>
After a four and a half year probe initiated by South Africa’s Competition Commission, a panel of independent experts <a href="http://www.compcom.co.za/provisional-%20findings-and-recommendations-report/">released</a> their preliminary report into the country’s private health care market. The Conversation Africa spoke to Sharon Fonn, who was on the panel of experts, about the report.
Why was a market inquiry set up?
The inquiry was set up because private health care and medical scheme cover is expensive in South Africa. Costs continue to rise and fewer people can afford it. People who have health insurance find that the scheme covers less care and they often have to pay out of pocket.
Also, the private health care sector consumes a large amount of the health care spend and resources despite the fact that it only serves a small portion of the population. The private health care market serves about 18% of the population who buy health care insurance sold by medical schemes. But the private market consumes about half of the total health spend every year.
What did you find about competition – or lack of – in the sector?
The first thing to realise is that this is a complicated market with lots of different players in it so there isn’t a straightforward easy answer. It’s complex.
The report talks about a funder market. What is this and what did you find?
By funders we mean the companies that purchase health care. This includes medical schemes, the administrators that schemes use and the managed care organisations that the schemes contract with. We found that competition doesn’t operate as it should on the funder side of the market.
Basically what schemes do is pool the money that members of schemes give in premiums each month. The point of health insurance is to enable money to be pooled so that the healthy can cross-subsidise the sick. Over time it evens out.
Health insurance is there to protect people from catastrophic expenditure. Members should want their scheme to be careful and wise with their money.
Is this not happening and if not why not?
We think this isn’t happening for a number of reasons. It’s not to do with schemes being bad. It’s about the way the market operates.
One of the reasons it’s hard to know if schemes are being wise is that consumers don’t have the information they need. There are about 270 different health care plans on offer from all the various medical aid schemes – each offers different cover and costs a different amount. It’s very difficult to compare them and work out which option offers the best bang for a person’s buck.
We have recommended that all schemes have to offer a basic package that offers the same care. Consumers could then compare like with like.
On top of this there are also regulatory problems (rules about how schemes work) where we recommend changes so that it’s easier for schemes to offer a single comparable package.
So one package is one solution. But how does a person know if the quality is good or bad?
In the private market there are no measures of quality that are shared with 
the public. Consumers don’t know if a hospital is good or bad. There is also no way to judge if care being provided by doctors and specialists is effective as there are no measures on whether or not people are better afterwards.
This can lead to more and more interventions – and a waste of money.
If data are pooled and lots of doctors and patients report about health outcomes, we can begin to know if having an extra test or some kind of intervention works. We make a recommendation about reporting on quality and outcomes.
You looked at hospitals – what did you find?
We found that is a very high level of concentration in the hospital sector. Three hospital groups dominate: Netcare, Mediclinic and Life. They have more than 80% of the hospital beds available and get 90% of all the admissions. This distorts and restricts competition.
We have made some recommendations around this. But one thing we think is essential is a supply side regulator that would, among other things, assist provinces in issuing licenses for hospitals. Some countries, like Germany, are very strict about the number of beds available in the hospital sector.
The report also talks about doctors, what did you find?
There are problems when it comes to the way doctors and specialists work. They work as individuals – not as a team. Team-based care is an internationally accepted standard because it provides better care and can be more cost effective. But our system doesn’t allow this easily.
Also doctors and specialists use a fee-for-service billing model. This means they bill patients for each service they perform during a consultation. Obviously people inclined to maximise their income they will do more so they earn more. There is no good mechanism to manage this.
This is a universal problem. Different countries have different ways of managing it. In Sweden, for example, almost all specialists are salaried and paid by the state. So they don’t have an incentive to do more to earn more.
There is a chapter supply induced demand. What’s that about?
Basically it means that when some additional care is offered (increased access), additional use of the service that would not have otherwise have happened takes place.
This has two consequences: wasteful expenditure and patients being over serviced.
*How does South Africa compare to other countries? *
When it comes to the private health care sector South Africa faces a problem of over-servicing and over supplying. Three examples illustrate this.
Firstly, hospital admission rates are extremely high. South Africa’s rate was higher than all but two of 17 other OECD countries we used as comparisons.
We also looked at seven different surgical procedures. In four, South Africa had the highest usage rates.
Lastly we looked at the number of people that get admitted to intensive care units. We found that South Africa had higher admission rates than eight other countries with comparable published data.
What will it take to break the current patterns?
We recommend that the regulatory regime needs to be improved. Regulators aren’t as sensitive to competition issues as they could be. South Africa has laws in place but they aren’t being fully used. Stewardship from the Department of Health has also been weak.
But we were also very aware that there is no quick fix. The market is incredibly complex. This means that several interrelated interventions are needed. Market failures will persist if the recommendations aren’t introduced as a package.
We also kept in mind that the country is trying to move towards a system of Universal Health Coverage and we have been mindful not to undermine that vision.
What, in summary are your main recommendations?
<ul>
<li>The way in which schemes operate needs to change. This should include the way options are structured so that people can compare apples with apples. We hope that will improve accountability in the funder market.</li>
<li>More transparency: a system needs to be put in place that allows people to see what value they’re getting for what they’re paying for.</li>
<li><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99799/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />Greater competition, especially in the hospital sector is needed.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sharon-fonn-162995">Sharon Fonn</a>, Professsor of Public Health; Co-Director Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa; Panel Member, Private Healthcare Market Inquiry, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-witwatersrand-894">University of the Witwatersrand</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-competitive-is-south-africas-private-health-care-sector-99799">original article</a>.

EXPLAINER: Is South Africa’s private health care sector competitive?

HARARE (Reuters) &#8211; Troops ordered shops to close and told people to leave the centre of Zimbabwe’s capital on Thursday, one day after three people were killed by soldiers sent in to break up demonstrators claiming this week’s presidential election was rigged.
The crackdown by the army has punctured the euphoria that followed its removal of long-time strongman Robert Mugabe eight months ago, and fuelled suspicions that the generals who launched the coup remain Zimbabwe’s de facto rulers.
In Harare, the contrast could not be stronger with November, when hundreds of thousands filled the streets, hugging soldiers and celebrating their role in ousting 94-year-old Mugabe, the only leader Zimbabwe had known since independence in 1980.
“They are showing their true colours now. We thought they were our saviour in November but they fooled us,” said newspaper vendor Farai Dzengera, admitting that the brief dream of an end to decades of repression was over.
“Now they tell us to leave town. What can we do? We will go. They run this country.”
Nearly all shops in downtown Harare were shuttered and the normally bustling pavements eerily quiet. Several streets remained littered with the rubble and embers from Wednesday’s clashes between protesters and soldiers.
“We are just waiting to see what they will do next since they don’t want us in town. Who can argue with a man carrying a gun?” said Isaac Nyirenda, sipping a sorghum beer out of a sipping a blue plastic bottle.
ARMY IN CHARGE 
Wednesday’s violence, which followed a relatively orderly election, dashes President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s hopes of repairing the image of a country that had become synonmous with corruption and economic collapse in under Mugabe.
In particular, the use of soldiers to control the capital confirms suspicions that the generals who ousted Mugabe &#8211; including army chief-turned vice-president Constantino Chiwenga &#8211; are firmly in charge, analysts said.
“Deployment of troops reveals the uncomfortable truth that, eight months after Mugabe was ousted, the army remains the pre-eminent political force,” said Piers Pigou, a Zimbabwe expert at the International Crisis Group think-tank.
The election, which pitched 75-year-old Mnangagwa against 40-year-old opposition leader Nelson Chamisa, was supposed to confirm the legitimacy of the post-Mugabe government and allow Harare to renew ties with the international community.
This in turn would have allowed it to start unlocking the billions of dollars of donor funding and investment needed to get its economy &#8211; at independence, one of Africa’s most vibrant &#8211; back on its feet.
Instead, observers from the Commonwealth, the group of mainly former British colonies that Mnangagwa had been hoping to rejoin, did not mince their words in condemning the conduct of the military.
“We categorically denounce the excessive use of force against unarmed civilians,” former Ghanaian president John Mahama said in a statement on behalf of the Commonwealth.
He also urged the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) to speed up the announcement of the results of the presidential vote. The observers had on Wednesday reported a number of problems with the poll, including voter intimidation.
The United Nations and European Union both called for restraint, while Britain, an unashamed cheerleader of the “new” post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, said it was “deeply concerned” by the violence.
China, an important source of funding under Mugabe and Mnangagwa, said however it believed the election had generally proceeded in an orderly fashion. A foreign ministry spokesman “noted” reports of Wednesday’s unrest.
“NO SKULDUGGERY” 
Mnangagwa, a former security chief nicknamed ‘The Crocodile’, offered his condolences to the families of the victims of the crackdown and said those responsible would be brought to justice.
He also said he had been talking to Chamisa to try to defuse tensions, which escalated dramatically after the Movement for Democratic Change leader claimed &#8211; without producing evidence or numbers &#8211; that he had won the popular vote. [nL5N1US0UD]
There was no response from the MDC, whose founder, Morgan Tsvangirai, beat Mugabe in the first round of an election in 2008 before pulling out of the race after scores of his supporters were killed.
Tsvangirai, who was savagely beaten in police custody in 2007, died of cancer in February.
The election commission, whose website was hacked overnight, said it would announce the results of the vote “very soon” and denied MDC claims that it had allowed ZANU-PF to rig the vote.
There was “absolutely no skulduggery”, deputy chairman Emmanuel Magade told a news conference.
For some, however, the result no longer matters.
“Yesterday was a very sad day for Zimbabwe,” said minibus driver Gift, glancing over his shoulder at a soldier smoking a cigarette.
“We hope things remain quiet and we can all just forget about this election. We don’t know if it was fair. The government will do what they want.”
Additional reporting and writing by Ed Cropley, Editing by Angus MacSwan

Why use of troops raises suspicions in Zimbabwe’s elections

HARARE (Reuters) &#8211; The presidential candidate for Zimbabwe’s main opposition accused the ruling ZANU-PF of trying to steal the general election on Wednesday after official figures gave President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s party a majority in parliament.
Nelson Chamisa, 40, and the 75-year-old Mnangagwa were the main contenders in Monday’s vote, the first since Robert Mugabe was forced to resign after a de facto coup in November after nearly 40 years in power.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s results showed Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF cruising to a big majority after picking up 109 seats against 41 for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Another 58 seats are yet to be declared.
Results of the presidential poll are expected by Saturday.
On his official Twitter feed, Chamisa accused the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission of releasing the parliamentary results first to prepare Zimbabweans for a Mnangagwa victory.
“The strategy is meant to prepare Zimbabwe mentally to accept fake presidential results. We’ve more votes than ED (Emmerson Dambudzo). We won the popular vote (and) will defend it,” Chamisa said.
On Wednesday, foreign observers, including the European Union, who have been monitoring the elections for the first time since 2002, will issue their verdict on Monday’s vote.
Zimbabwe was once one of Africa’s most promising economies but under Mugabe’s rule became tainted by corruption, mismanagement and diplomatic isolation. Its population of 13 million is struggling amid shortages of foreign currency, unemployment above 80 percent and lack of foreign investment.
In the capital Harare many people went about their usual daily grind, including queuing up for scarce cash outside banks.
The House of Assembly of Parliament has 210 seats and ZANU-PF would need to win 30 more to have a two-thirds majority that would allow it to change the constitution at will.
Voters in Zimbabwe traditionally pick a presidential candidate based on their party affiliation and the trend in the parliamentary election was expected to continue when results for the president are announced this week.
Chamisa’s MDC won in most urban centres, where it enjoys majority support. One independent candidate and a member from a party linked to Mugabe also won one seat each.
On Tuesday Former Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) finance minister Tendai Biti and ZESN, the main domestic election monitor, said one in five polling stations &#8211; more than 2,000 in all &#8211; had not physically posted tallies on their doors, as required by law.
That omission gave room for the ZEC, which ZESN and the opposition have accused of bias, to manipulate the results in favour of Mnangagwa and the ruling ZANU-PF party, Biti said.
Even though the election passed off peacefully, several water cannon trucks patrolled outside the central Harare headquarters of the MDC as its red-shirted supporters danced in the streets.
Reporting by MacDonald Dzirutwe and Joe Brock; Editing by Paul Tait and Raissa Kasolowsky

Opposition party questions poll as Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF wins majority in Zimbabwe parliament

HARARE, July 31 (Reuters) &#8211; Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposition party is preparing a court application to force the election commission to release results from Monday’s national ballot, a senior MDC official said on Tuesday.
Tendai Biti, a former finance minister, said some election results that were supposed to be posted outside voting stations were not available.
<iframe loading="lazy" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fnewsdayzim%2Fvideos%2F2074078382602848%2F&amp;show_text=0&amp;width=267" width="267" height="476" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
SOURCE: <a id="js_9k" class="profileLink" href="https://www.facebook.com/newsdayzim/?hc_ref=ARSfPBigw5FZn9oCId5oImFAqcwHpDjJ7YAroRJUJBg-2CllUtJSyVIJP7W5XPuzpm8" data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;k&quot;}" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=215170571826981&amp;extragetparams=%7B%22hc_ref%22%3A%22ARSfPBigw5FZn9oCId5oImFAqcwHpDjJ7YAroRJUJBg-2CllUtJSyVIJP7W5XPuzpm8%22%7D" data-hovercard-prefer-more-content-show="1" data-hovercard-referer="ARSfPBigw5FZn9oCId5oImFAqcwHpDjJ7YAroRJUJBg-2CllUtJSyVIJP7W5XPuzpm8">NewsDay-Zimbabwe</a> 
The election, the first since the removal of Robert Mugabe last November, is a two-horse race between MDC leader Nelson Chamisa and President Emmerson Mnangagwa. Biti said it was clear Chamisa had won. No official results have been released. (Reporting by MacDonald Dzirutwe; Writing by Joe Brock; editing by John Stonestreet)

Zimbabwe’s main opposition party prepares to go to court over vote results -party official

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) &#8211; South Africa’s unemployment rate rose to 27.2 percent of the labour force in the second quarter from 26.7 percent in the first quarter, the statistics office said on Tuesday.
In its quarterly labour force survey, Statistics South Africa said the manufacturing sector saw the most job losses.
There were 6.1 million people without jobs in the three months to the end of June, compared with 6.0 million people in the first three months of the year, it said.
The expanded definition of unemployment, which includes people who have stopped looking for work, rose to 37.2 percent in the second quarter from 36.7 percent in the previous quarter.
Reporting by Mfuneko Toyana; Writing by Alexander Winning; Editing by James Macharia

What you need to know about the rise of South Africa’s Q2 unemployment rate

HARARE (Reuters) &#8211; Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his main opponent, Nelson Chamisa, both said on Tuesday they were confident of victory in an election the previous day which observers deemed too early to call.
Mnangagwa said he was receiving “extremely positive” information on the vote. Chamisa said earlier the opposition Movement for Democratic Change had done “exceedingly well” in the vote.
The 75-year-old Mnangagwa and Chamisa, 40, were the main contenders in Monday’s election, the first since Robert Mugabe was removed in a bloodless coup in November.
Western diplomats and local observer groups said the race, which saw a turnout of 75 percent, was too close to call.
The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission will announce official results within five days of the election although the outcome should be known well before then.
The winner faces the task of putting Zimbabwe back on track after 37 years under Mugabe which were tainted by corruption, mismanagement and diplomatic isolation that caused a crisis in a country that once had one of Africa’s most promising economies.
“The information from our reprentatives on the ground is extremely positive!” Mnangagwa said on his official Twitter feed.
Chamisa had earlier said he was poised for victory, writing on Twitter: “Awaiting ZEC to perform their constitutional duty to officially announce the people’s election results and we are ready to form the next government.”
A Chamisa victory is unlikely to sit well with military generals who plotted Mugabe’s ouster last November, and there could be a pushback.
Some of the generals who orchestrated the coup are now in government, including Vice President Constantino Chiwenga.
Many Zimbabweans worry that should Mnangagwa lose some in the ruling party may not accept the result, given the huge risk they took in removing Mugabe.
Mnangagwa and ZANU-PF have said they will accept the result.
“THIS IS AFRICA”
“If this guy loses there is no way they will handover power,” said Gift Machekera, pointing at a huge banner of Mnangagwa hanging on a building in Harare.
“Those who have the guns have the power. This is Africa.”
Mnangagwa was viewed as the frontrunner, although the latest opinion polls showed a tight race. There will be a runoff on Sept. 8 if no candidate wins more than half the votes.
Several civil society groups are collating results from 10,985 polling posts in parallel with ZEC but are not allowed to release results before the ZEC. A source at one group said it was too early to call a winner but it was looking “very close”.
In the capital Harare, an MDC stronghold, results posted outside some polling stations seen by Reuters showed Chamisa winning by wide margins, but Mnangagwa was expected to claw back ground in the ruling ZANU-PF’s rural heartland.
Urban results tend to emerge quicker than those from rural outposts, where communication is poor.
In some rural constituencies in the east and south of the country, counting of votes was still ongoing but was expected to end early on Tuesday, some parliamentary candidates said.
A credible vote is essential if Zimbabwe is to exit painful sanctions and secure the donor funding and investment needed to stem chronic cash shortages.
The run-up to Monday’s vote was largely peaceful compared to past elections under Mugabe, where the ruling party and war veterans were accused of violence against opponents.
Dozens of people were killed ahead of a runoff in 2008 between Mugabe and MDC-founder Morgan Tsvangirai, who died of cancer in February.
Mugabe emerged on the eve of the election to announce he would vote for the opposition, surprising Mnangagwa who accused him of striking a deal with Chamisa.
Reporting by MacDonald Dzirutwe and Joe Brock; Editing by Nick Macfie and Raissa Kasolowsky

Mnangagwa and Chamisa both confident of a victory in Zimbabwe elections, here’s why

HARARE (Reuters) &#8211; Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa cast his vote on Monday in the first election since the removal of Robert Mugabe, rejecting claims made by his former mentor a day earlier that the election would not be free.
Mnangagwa, a 75-year-old former intelligence chief, is facing off against Nelson Chamisa, a 40-year-old lawyer and preacher who is vying to become Zimbabwe’s youngest head of state.
Reporting by Joe Brock; Editing by Angus MacSwan

Zimbabwe’s Mnangagwa rejects claims by Mugabe that elections will not be free

HARARE (Reuters) &#8211; Former President Robert Mugabe said he would vote for Zimbabwe’s opposition in Monday’s election, turning on one-time allies in the government ahead of the first vote since they ousted him in a de facto coup.
The election will see 75-year-old President Emmerson Mnangagwa, a long-time Mugabe ally, face 40-year-old Nelson Chamisa, a lawyer and pastor who is vying to become Zimbabwe’s youngest head of state.
Polls, which are unreliable, give former intelligence chief Mnangagwa only a slim lead over Chamisa, making a runoff on September 8 a possibility.
Mugabe, whose 37-year rule came to an end when he was forced to resign in November, told reporters at his mansion in Harare on Sunday that Mnangagwa’s government was unconstitutional and ruled by the gun.
“I hope the choice of voting tomorrow will throw, thrust away the military government and bring us back to constitutionality,” said a frail looking Mugabe, in a rambling off the cuff speech that lasted almost an hour.
“I said I can’t vote for those who have caused me to be in this situation &#8230; so there is Chamisa left.”
Mugabe, one of the last “Big Men” of African politics, still looms large over Zimbabwean politics and he may yet influence the first vote without his name on the ballot paper since the country gained independence from Britain in 1980.
Though he became increasingly unpopular with most Zimbabweans as mismanagement and corruption sent the economy into decline, he retains support in his rural heartland where supporters remain bitter about the manner of his removal.
Mnangagwa, known as “the crocodile”, an animal famed in Zimbabwean lore for its stealth and ruthlessness, was removed as vice president by Mugabe last November to make way for his wife, Grace, to seize power, analysts say.
This was too much for army generals who rolled military vehicles through the streets of Harare and kept Mugabe under house arrest until he resigned facing imminent impeachment.
VIOLENCE FEARS 
Mugabe on Sunday said it was “total nonsense” that he wanted his wife to succeed him and claimed that he was preparing to resign at a ZANU-PF congress in December.
Such is the draw Mugabe retains even seven months after stepping aside, he became the focus of questions at a parallel press conference held by Chamisa.
“Mr. Mugabe’s wishes are his wishes. I am going to accept any voter with open hands. The more the merrier,” Chamisa said in response to a question about Mugabe’s endorsement.
Elections under Mugabe were often undermined by violence, rigging and voter intimidation.
Chamisa’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has already cast doubt on the election process, accusing the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) of bias.
There have been reports of intimidation and coercion, and state media is biased towards the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF). But there is consensus that the process has been better than before.
Mnangagwa has welcomed in foreign media and international observers from the EU, United States and the Commonwealth, while opposition parties have been freely allowed to campaign.
If Chamisa disputes the result or no one candidate gets more than 50 percent and there is a runoff, there are fears of street protests and possible violence.
Dozens of people were killed in the lead up to a runoff in 2008 between Mugabe and MDC founder Morgan Tsvangirai, who died in February. Tsvangirai pulled out of the contest before the vote in an effort to end the bloodshed.
“A run-off election is becoming more probable, which also increases the risk of violence as it has in previous election cycles,” said Robert Besseling, analyst at EXX Africa.
“Although an outbreak of widespread violence as in 2008 is not expected &#8230; incidents of localised violence are increasing in frequency and intensity.”
Reporting by Macdonald Dzirutwe; Writing by Joe Brock; editing by Mark Heinrich, William Maclean

Why Zimbabwe’s Mugabe is endorsing Chamisa

Nyshka Chandran
Source: <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/brics-could-benefit-from-global-trade-tensions.html">The world&#8217;s major emerging economies could end up benefiting from global trade tensions</a>
<ul>
<li>Escalating trade tensions, and tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration, could give BRICS countries fresh purpose to push forward their trade agendas.</li>
<li>Divergent trade policies between members, however, could be a problem.</li>
<li>The bloc — which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — has struggled to establish a unified voice on the international stage.</li>
</ul>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://d16akly8855cs7.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/26140344/105350807-1532496152485gettyimages-967163620.1910x1000.jpg" alt="" height="1000" width="1910" data-licensor-name="Alexander Shcherbak | TASS"/>
The bloc of emerging economies known as 
BRICS 
 have long struggled to establish a unified voice on the international stage, but U.S. President Donald Trump may be providing them with an unlikely boost.
As the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa gather in Johannesburg on Wednesday for their annual meeting, the issue of trade protectionism is set to dominate talks amid 
Trump&#8217;s proposed tariffs 
 on the European Union and Beijing. If the five-member group plays its cards right, it can use the matter to push forward the nations&#8217; own trade agendas.
BRICS members have an interest in developing a world with multiple countries filling leadership roles, so they will be looking to &#8220;take advantage&#8221; of tensions to &#8220;to build up the profile of BRICS,&#8221; said Duncan Innes-Ker, regional director for Asia at The Economist Intelligence Unit.
BRICS has sought to reject the Western dominance of international institutions, but a lack of unity prevents members from coming up with an alternative solution. Now, with Trump&#8217;s duties on imported steel and aluminum set to hurt each BRICS member — Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow have already responded with retaliatory duties — the bloc has fresh purpose to rally together.
That&#8217;s a positive for Beijing, 
which is now trying to tout itself as a champion of free trade 
 and has claimed it was &#8221; 
forced 
&#8221; to fight back against Trump&#8217;s measures with reciprocal tariffs.
&#8220;Given the failure of the 
G-20 finance ministers meeting 
 held earlier this week to defuse the threat to world trade from rising protectionism, the BRICS summit is likely to become a key global forum for galvanizing global support for multilateral trade liberalization,&#8221; said Rajiv Biswas, Asia-Pacific chief economist at IHS Markit.
The Trump administration has said it is not advocating protectionism, but rather seeking to even a playing field that has been corrupted by unfair trade practices. Those penalized by Trump&#8217;s tariffs, however, have tried to paint the U.S. as no longer interested in free trade, vacating its traditional role on the global stage.
BRICS countries may try to step into that gap, negotiating wide-ranging trade agreements with many countries, Biswas continued.
The volatile global trade backdrop could also benefit emerging markets in more tangible ways.
&#8220;China might turn to India, Brazil, Russia &#8230; to source products it originally bought from the U.S., such as soy beans, wheat, and meat,&#8221; said Alex Capri, visiting senior fellow at the National University of Singapore. &#8220;This creates new opportunities for BRICS, at least temporarily.&#8221;
American firms may also seek to move some activities to emerging markets that are within existing trading blocs so as to avoid rising tariffs, he noted.
While many are hopeful for the three-day BRICS summit to advance trade liberalization, divergent policies between members could stand in the way.
&#8220;The challenge for BRICS has always been what exactly holds them together beyond a cute acronym,&#8221; warned Deborah Elms, executive director of the Asian Trade Centre, noting their different domestic structures. &#8220;China is outward looking and manufacturing focused. Brazil is increasingly outward focused, but mostly for agriculture, not manufacturing. India is really not open.&#8221;

The world’s major emerging economies could end up benefiting from global trade tensions

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) &#8211; The New Development Bank, set up by the BRICS group of emerging economies, has approved loans of $300 million for energy projects in South Africa and $300 million for a transportation project in China.
South Africa, which will host a BRICS summit later this week in Johannesburg, is trying to diversify its energy mix to reduce its reliance on heavily polluting coal-fired power plants.
It has launched several bidding rounds for billions of dollars of renewable energy deals in recent years, with the latest expected to open later this year.
The BRICS development bank said in a statement that its $300 million loan to South Africa would be channelled via the Development Bank of Southern Africa and would focus on projects which reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost energy efficiency.
Its $300 million loan to China is for a new metro line in the city of Luoyang. With the two projects, the bank’s portfolio of loans stands at more than $5.7 billion.
The BRICS grouping comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Russia said this month that it was in talks with the New Development Bank about borrowing more than $1 billion for infrastructure projects.
Reporting by Alexander Winning; Editing by Alison Williams

Why BRICS bank is loaning South Africa and China $300 million each

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) &#8211; Diamond producer De Beers said on Monday it was relocating 200 elephants from its private reserve in South Africa to neighbouring Mozambique, part of wider efforts to restore wildlife populations ravaged by conflict there.
The Anglo American unit said its 32,000-hectare )80,000-acre) Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve could support around 60 elephants but now had 270, causing “extensive damage to an ecosystem that must sustain a diverse wildlife population.”
The world’s largest land mammals have a jumbo-sized impact on their terrain and in many South African parks, which are fenced to contain them, populations have reached levels where the vegetation cannot support their numbers.
De Beers said the elephants would be moved 1,500 km (1,000 miles) to Mozambique’s Zinave National Park, which has over 400,000 hectares and an elephant population of only 60.
Mozambique’s wildlife numbers were badly hit by a 15-year civil war that ended in 1992. In more recent years, its remaining elephant populations have been targeted by ivory poachers.
The operation is being conducted with the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) conservation group, and De Beers said it was providing it with $500,000 to support anti-poaching efforts.
“Ecosystems require a range of fauna and flora to stay balanced. If you remove one species, such as elephant, it has a ripple effect on the whole system,” said Werner Myburgh, the chief executive of the PPF.
“The reintroduction of elephants to Mozambique will bring us one step closer to achieving our dream of restoring the landscape.”
Elephants are extremely social animals and family groups will be kept together for the translocation, a huge logistical undertaking that will include darting operations and the movement of tranquilised animals over long distances by road.
Editing by James Macharia and Robin Pomeroy

Here’s why De Beers is moving 200 elephants from South Africa to Mozambique

This week a handful of the most powerful people on the planet will tread the pavement in Africa’s richest square mile to plot the way forward for the emerging economies of the southern hemisphere.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Michel Temer and China’s Xi Jinping lead a group of presidents to the BRICS conference at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg on July 25,26 and 27. These are the strident leaders of the emerging economies armed with aggressive, long term, foreign economic policy, rich in resources and determined to see a shift of world power south from the northern hemisphere.
South Africa, which joined the south-to-south political and economic cooperation group in 2011, is chairing the group this year and has high hopes for it.
South Africa is very much the junior partner in the BRICS group that did R462 billion ($34 billion) in trade among themselves, in 2017, and garnered more than R554 trillion in foreign direct investments. In 2015, India gathered 38.9% of world foreign direct investment, Russia 26.1% while South Africa managed a mere 0.8%.
Yet South Africa will be hoping to use the gravitas of the organisation to help funnel investment in from Russia to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in search of fulfilling President Cyril Ramaphosa’s pledge of $100 billion in foreign investment.
South Africa plans to lead the way in talks over manufacturing, minerals process, science and technology. Tourism is also likely to be a topic for South African government officials with the country hosting around 200,000 tourists a year from BRICS countries, as will the fourth industrial revolution and peacekeeping.
“I think we may see a few infrastructure deals and trade agreements, especially with Russia, as South Africa tries to achieve Cyril Ramaphosa’s $100 billion foreign investment pledge,” says George Glynos, of ETM analysts.
“There will be a good deal of sharing of ideas and technology transfer, but I don’t think we will see too much concrete emerging from this conference,” says Azar Jammine, of Econometrix.
On the political front the big expected meeting will be between Putin and Xi Jinping to discuss the fall out of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.
President Modi plans to make a dash across the African continent to arrive in time for proceedings on Wednesday. At 9 am CAT the Indian premier will address the Parliament of Uganda, in Kampala, an address that will be carried live across the continent by CNBC Africa.

BRICS in Africa, what you need to know

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) &#8211; South Africa’s struggling state-run power firm Eskom reported a 2.3 billion rand ($171 million) loss on Monday, underlining the enormity of the task facing President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has pledged to turn the company around.
Eskom, Africa’s largest public utility, was embroiled in corruption scandals under former president Jacob Zuma and narrowly avoided a liquidity crunch early this year after banks halted lending. Zuma has denied any wrongdoing.
It supplies more than 90 percent of South Africa’s electricity, and ratings agencies regularly cite its 220 billion rand of government-guaranteed debt as a threat to the country’s sovereign credit ratings.
Eskom pegged the loss for 2017/18 financial year ending March on increases in financing costs and depreciation compared with a profit of 888 million rand in the previous reporting period.
“Eskom is undoubtedly facing one of the most difficult times in its history,” Eskom chairman Jabu Mabuza said.
The utility’s executives told a news conference it had 22.7 billion rand liquidity by the end of the financial year.
Eskom reported about 20 billion rand of irregular expenditure incurred since 2012, as the firm combs its financials for evidence of wrongdoing.
Reporting by Alex Winning; Editing by James Macharia

How Eskom, South Africa’s power utility, lost $171 million

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) &#8211; Steinhoff’s creditors agreed to hold on their debt claims for three years, the embattled retailer said on Friday, throwing a lifeline for the South African retailer caught in the throes of an accounting scandal.
The parties will now seek to implement the restructuring within three months, the retailer said in a statement. Steinhoff’s shares initially rose 3 percent in response to the news, but later pared its gains to trade down 1.69.
It is fighting for survival after revealing multi-billion euro holes in its balance sheet that wiped more than 90 percent off its market value and forced it to sell assets to fund working capital.
Reporting by Nqobile Dludla; Editing by James Macharia

Lifeline thrown at Steinhoff as creditors agree to debt lock-up, what you need to know

By Morne van der Merwe, Managing Partner and Head of the Corporate/M&amp;A Practice, Baker McKenzie Johannesburg
Total deal volumes and values of Merger &amp; Acquisition (M&amp;A) transactions in Africa fell sharply in the first half of 2018, declining 44% in deal volume and 57% in aggregate value, compared to the first half of 2017, according to analysis by Baker McKenzie of Thomson Reuters  M&amp;A data for Africa. The report notes that there were 485 deals valued at USD 19, 420 million in the first half of 2017, this dropped to 270 deals valued at USD 8,318 million in H1 2018. On a positive note, intraregional cross-border deals rose twofold in terms of aggregate value from USD 418 million in the first half of 2017 to USD 1,292 million in H1 2018.
Africa is a continent with 54 different countries, all with different economies and so it is difficult to pin down specifically what has caused the downturn in M&amp;A activity in the first half of the year. Generally, inbound investment in Africa has been affected by political uncertainty and unpredictability &#8211; business does not mind challenge but has no affinity for uncertainty. Corruption and bad governance, as well as the strict anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in some investor countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, has made investors more cautious.
Intraregional trade 
Despite the downturn in M&amp;A transactions, it appears that regional economies are developing and intraregional trade is doing well. East Africa is developing a strong regional focus and had almost left the Southern African region behind, although this region has come back onto the radar of late.
Further, certain economies such as Ethiopia are becoming more of a discussion point as popular investor destinations in Africa because of interesting development initiatives taking place in this country.
The majority of the intraregional deals in Africa were in the High Technology Sector (cutting edge or advanced technology) which accounted for 21% of all deals. Interregional dealmaking value was highest in the Financial sector which made up 82% of the total value. There were four High Technology intraregional deals in Africa in the first half of 2018. Intraregional deals in the financial sector in H1 2018 were worth USD 1,056 million.
The financial services sector, especially banks and insurance companies have been deploying various models for their expansion into Africa, including regionally focused strategies. Lessons we have picked up from these markets include that having the right local partner remains key to being successful in Africa and that it is important it to think twice before you impose your brand on a market where you have recently made an acquisition. This is because you may change the recently acquired company from what had made it successful in the first place. Keeping the local brand and management in place has worked very well for some in the financial services sector who have expanded into Africa.
Events such as Barclays withdrawing from Africa had left many wondering how a financial giant like Absa would rethink its strategy and possible expansion into Africa, and it will be interesting to follow the unfolding of their strategy to position themselves as an African Bank. We think that expanding into the continent and having a regional approach as part of that expansion is something they are most likely thinking about very carefully.
Growth in investment in both the financial services sector and the technology sector in Africa are interlinked. Financial services organisations are becoming more dependent on investment in technology and innovation as they look to upgrade their IT systems and find news way to grow their customer bases.
Inbound 
In terms of inbound cross-border transactions with other regions, Industrials was the most popular by deal volume (16% share of the total) with 16 deals completed in the first half of the year. Energy &amp; Power attracted the highest share of aggregate deal value (35% of the total value), with deals valued at USD 1,493 million.
The industrials sector is a focus area for many developing economies across the continent and the sector is well established, leading to many more opportunities than one would find in less well established sectors,.
Further, the extent of the power deficit in Africa is well known and increasing electricity generation, whether on-grid or off-grid, across the continent is the focus of a number of initiatives, all of which are driving investment.
In terms of foreign investors, the United States (US) was the most acquisitive in Africa, representing 18% of deal volume and 39% of deal value. The US completed 18 deals in Africa in H1 2018, worth USD 1,694 million.
The US has been a significant investor in the African continent for some time. Trump’s policies have played out well for certain countries in Africa and the relationship between the US and Africa is very much focused on strategic bilateral relationships influencing the direction of investment flow.
Outbound 
In terms of outbound deals, High Technology had the highest volume of outbound interregional cross-border deals (13% of total deals). There were eight outbound deals in the High Technology sector in the first half of the year. Real Estate accounted for the highest share in aggregate value at 27% of total value of outbound deals. This sector completed USD 430 million worth of deals in H1 2018.
The high number of outbound technology deals from Africa is because African tech companies are targeting offshore investments in companies that will deepen their access to new technologies, markets and talent.
The real estate sector attains prominence because of relative value of real estate as an asset class. As economies develop, so does real the estate sector. For example, the expanding middle class and consumerism in Africa has led to a growth in the consumer goods sector and real estate development is part of that as new shopping centres are developed. Also, African infrastructure development is high on the agenda across the continent and there is a big real estate element associated with that as well.
The UK had the highest number of investors from Africa during the period H1 2018 (20% share), with 12 deals being completed in the first half of the year. India was the most attractive market in terms of value (46% of total value). African dealmakers completed transactions worth USD 735 million in India in H1 2018.
The ease of doing business with the UK brought about by various factors, including, time zones, easy access, language, historical ties and familiarity has meant that investment between the UK and numerous African countries has always been good. Brexit has impacted positively on investment in that it has caused UK trade outreach initiatives to various historic trade partners.
With regards to India being a popular investment destination for African businesses to invest, this is because like Africa, India is a developing economy. African investors are astute in seeking out opportunities in these economies because the environment and challenges are often similar, or at least comparable. This makes it easier to build a relationship with local partners, which is so necessary for successful investment. India is also a very large economy and so huge opportunities can be accessed for investors who know where to look. In addition, historical ties between India and many countries in Africa adds to the familiarity and relative ease of doing business.

Southern Africa

Why South Africa’s plans to change constitution by expropriating land without compensation could strengthen property rights

Op-Ed: South Africa’s rush into populist politics in a policy vacuum

EXPLAINER: Is South Africa’s private health care sector competitive?

Why use of troops raises suspicions in Zimbabwe’s elections

Opposition party questions poll as Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF wins majority in Zimbabwe parliament

Zimbabwe’s main opposition party prepares to go to court over vote results -party official

What you need to know about the rise of South Africa’s Q2 unemployment rate

Mnangagwa and Chamisa both confident of a victory in Zimbabwe elections, here’s why

Zimbabwe’s Mnangagwa rejects claims by Mugabe that elections will not be free

Why Zimbabwe’s Mugabe is endorsing Chamisa

The world’s major emerging economies could end up benefiting from global trade tensions

Why BRICS bank is loaning South Africa and China $300 million each

Here’s why De Beers is moving 200 elephants from South Africa to Mozambique

BRICS in Africa, what you need to know

How Eskom, South Africa’s power utility, lost $171 million

Lifeline thrown at Steinhoff as creditors agree to debt lock-up, what you need to know

Fewer mergers and acquisitions are taking place in Africa, here’s why

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Southern Africa

Why South Africa’s plans to change constitution by expropriating land without compensation could strengthen property rights

Op-Ed: South Africa’s rush into populist politics in a policy vacuum

EXPLAINER: Is South Africa’s private health care sector competitive?

Why use of troops raises suspicions in Zimbabwe’s elections

Opposition party questions poll as Mnangagwa’s ZANU-PF wins majority in Zimbabwe parliament

Zimbabwe’s main opposition party prepares to go to court over vote results -party official

What you need to know about the rise of South Africa’s Q2 unemployment rate

Mnangagwa and Chamisa both confident of a victory in Zimbabwe elections, here’s why

Zimbabwe’s Mnangagwa rejects claims by Mugabe that elections will not be free

Why Zimbabwe’s Mugabe is endorsing Chamisa

The world’s major emerging economies could end up benefiting from global trade tensions

Why BRICS bank is loaning South Africa and China $300 million each

Here’s why De Beers is moving 200 elephants from South Africa to Mozambique

BRICS in Africa, what you need to know

How Eskom, South Africa’s power utility, lost $171 million

Lifeline thrown at Steinhoff as creditors agree to debt lock-up, what you need to know

Fewer mergers and acquisitions are taking place in Africa, here’s why

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters