(Last Updated on April 20, 2014 by Editor)
ZIMBABWE – Government has dismissed talk of an imminent Cabinet reshuffle triggered by alleged under-performance of some ministers, while also brushing off suggestions that Zim-Asset is not working according to plan and that the indigenisation policy could soon be reversed.
Some sections of the private media have lately been claiming that President Mugabe will soon drop some ministers and reshuffle others, while also questioning the efficacy of Zim-Asset and indigenisation.
In an interview with The Herald at the weekend, Media, Information and Broadcasting Services Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo said there was a strong sense of inspiration in Government on implementation of the Zimbabwe Agenda for Socio-Economic Transformation, reminiscent of the work ethic of the early 1980s when the Zanu-PF administration took over Government.
“This issue about a Cabinet reshuffle and calls for its review or reshuffle by His Excellency is something that is not confusing anybody or getting any serious attention from anyone in Government.
“After all, everyone knows we serve in Cabinet at the pleasure of His Excellency and it is his prerogative to reshuffle as and when he deems fit or necessary. When you know that such is the prerogative of the President, there is no reason why you should be bothered by media speculation or orchestration either about or for such a thing.
“One thing we all know though is that President Mugabe is one leader whose decisions are not made by the media. He makes them himself. So this is a non-issue,” said Prof Moyo.
He also snuffed speculation of a review of the indigenisation and economic empowerment policy saying that it formed the bedrock of the Zanu-PF Government’s economic strategy.
Prof Moyo said the policy would not be changed to serve some people who were fronting foreign interests. “There are some people who are suggesting that we rethink or realign the indigenisation and economic empowerment policy and it is quite strange to have this against the background that it is that which won elections,” said Prof Moyo.
“I cannot imagine a wise person wanting to rethink where their bread and butter is coming from. I am not aware of any policy changes but I have been reading in the newspapers where the suggestions are being made that we need to rethink indigenisation. In sport, you don’t change a winning team and in policy you don’t rethink a winning policy,” he explained.
He said what would be welcome would be fine-tuning and sharpening indigenisation so that it would better serve the electorate that endorsed the policy.
“We cannot say we must rethink indigenisation in order to advantage or benefit our friends – worse if they are foreigners – who are trying to find an easy way into the economy and trying to avoid to meeting the requirements of policy or law.
“I also think it is a repudiation of Zim-Asset to say we must rethink indigenisation meaning let’s do away with it . . . if people say let’s rethink it in order to change it and move away from it that is unacceptable and it has to be said in the strongest terms that we cannot do that. We cannot say one thing during election campaigns and do the opposite after elections,” he said.
He said the indigenisation policy was well-grounded and was attracting the attention of African countries as the resource nationalism wave swept the continent.