Connect with us

Business

Community2Conversations (C2C) Corporate Corner – The story of Setheo v City Power and the Arrest of Chifamba

Brian Tawanda Manyati

Published

on

Under the C2C Corporate Literacy Corner, we look at various issues that have a bearing on business operations and as well as on the broader economic environment.

Connections to Communities (C2C) is an initiative that is powered by the Pan African Business Forum (PABF), the 1873 FM radio, the 1873 Network, zwnews24, and the Banking on Africa’s Future (BOAF), which are platforms that seeks to build community power on issues that matter.

In today’s case study, as a member of the C2C family, I am going to look at an ongoing legal case in South Africa and then try to bring light on some subtle issues that every person and any other citizen must be familiar with, especially in their pursuit of personal and corporate development.

A dispute involving one of our members Mr. Chifamba was brought to our attention following a news article that appeared in the Citizen, a South Africa newspaper titled Project manager nabbed over R126m incomplete Eldorado park substation.

It is important to note that on Monday, 12 October 2020, Mr. Chifamba, an employee of Setheo who was assigned as Project Manager to handle the Eldorado Park substation, appeared before a Palm Ridge District Magistrate Court. 

This follows events that happened in 2015, where on or about 23 February, City Power accepted Setheo’s bid with reference Bid Number 2059GS: Upgrading of Existing Eldorado Park 88/11 KV and Associated Equipment,” which involved the construction of a new substation in Eldorado Park and decommissioning of the old substation.

It was agreed that Setheo and not the accused natural person, Chifamba, would perform all the obligations and liabilities of a contractor under the said contract for a total amount of R143, 649,899.09 inclusive of VAT.

In return, City Power was to pay all amounts due to Setheo in accordance with the conditions of the contract being Setheo’s Bill of Quantities and in milestone payments for sectional computation of works. 

Based on a press statement issued by the City of Johannesburg, Ms. Rica Richards of the Citizen reported that investigations were launched after employees of subcontractors linked to the project allegedly protested against Setheo. 

The said employees allegedly threatened to burn the station down. 

In the above mentioned case, Mr Chifamba is accused in his personal capacity of corruption and collusion in relation to the contract that he was not a party to since that was concluded between his employer and City Power.

It would ordinarily be self-evident that if the allegation of diversion of the funds that were paid by the City Power to Setheo as an advance was correct, then there would be no existence of assets to be burned.

This statement would seem to suggest that prior to the alleged investigation, assets were purchased and delivered to the site of the substation implying that the funds advanced had been converted to identifiable physical assets and as such this would preclude the allegation of any unjust enrichment. 

It is significant that the alleged protest caused the City of Johannesburg’s forensic and investigating service (GFIS) to be called upon. 

However, it is not disclosed who called BFIS and the legal authority relied upon for GFIS to be involved in any investigation related to a contract concluded between two competent contracting parties.

It was GFIS, as a third party, that effectively assumed the role of a substitute complainant alleging that the funds paid to Setheo were disbursed without any work related to the funds having been done on the ground yet the subcontractors are alleged to have threatened to destroy what would have been non-existent assets. 

It was reported that two City Power project managers, Maete Thoka and Godfrey Mulaudzi, were allegedly dismissed after GFIS outside the four corners of the rule of law, of having colluding with Setheo and not Chifamba, the accused, to ensure that invoices submitted were paid, without promised work done on the substation. 

Notwithstanding reason, common sense, and logic would compel one to dig deeper as to the legal relationship between GFIS, Setheo and City Power that would lead to GFIS being involved in the implementation of a contract and its cancellation without the knowledge and consent of all the contracting parties. 

Self-help activities are inimical to the rule of law. In this matter, it is common cause that the City of Johannesburg proceeded to be a complainant, investigator, prosecutor, and judge unto a cause that City Power was intricately involved in. 

Corporate civilization limits and ought to limit self-help schemes to allow for the sanctity of contracts to be respected.

South Africa’s constitutional ecosystem and morality is well established to limit any institution like the City of Johannesburg to act in the manner it is doing against a contracting party of City Power.

The absurdity of the situation becomes clearer when one has regard to the fact that City of Johannesburg is not City Power.

The C2C building of community power initiative seeks to provoke, ignite, and inspire the evolution of shared understanding on what a juristic person is and is not given the backdrop of a dualistic ecosystem of two civilizations in one.

Corporate civilization would inform that the City of Johannesburg has and continues to act in a manner that is ultra vires the Constitution and laws that govern the operations of juristic entities. 

Companies ought to act through their directors yet in this case, Mr. Chifamba who has no legal or contractual nexus with City Power finds himself with a case to answer in relation to his official duties as an agent of Setheo.

It is trite that the control and direction of companies is vested in directors but surprisingly, Mr. Chifamba who is neither a shareholder nor a director of Setheo has been divested and deprived of his freedom on allegations that are related to the alleged conduct of his employer. 

It is instructive that Setheo or its directors are jointly accused with Mr. Chifamba. 

Some of the C2C members who have had an opportunity to review court documents in a related civil matter that has been instituted by Setheo against City Power, have noted with concern that notwithstanding the fact that City Power is defined as a company but is identified as a wholly City of Johannesburg owned entity.

What is the significance, if any, of referring to a company whose rights and obligations have nothing to do with the owner?

Corporate illiteracy that is pervasive could be the ultimate culprit as it is the case that generally it is assumed that shareholders have a fiduciary obligation in respect of companies in which they may hold shares in. 

On the other hand, corporate literacy would inform otherwise.  

In this case, it may not be unusual for a hidden hand to be the driving force in the criminalization of Setheo through a blurred entanglement of City Power with the City of Johannesburg and GFIS in the Eldorado contact.

Brian Tawanda Manyati is a Chartered Governor and Accounting Technician.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Tips On Engaging A Manager In The Music Industry

Israel Sebenzo

Published

on

When is the right time to get a manager?

Because of the many different roles managers are mandated to serve to artists, there seems to be many misconceptions and questions around them.

How do you get one? What do they do? How do you know if they are a good manager? When signing a deal, how do you know if you are getting a good deal?

Hiring a manager is not a decision to be taken lightly, more so because signing a contract with one can tie you to that deal for several years and if it’s a bad deal, you are stuck with the bad deal.

It is extremely important to get a manager that has your best interests at heart.

As an artist however, it is even more important to develop your brand and craft first before setting out to get a manager.

I will be break down some crucial aspects that artists need to explore around getting management.

Are you ready for a manager?

The importance of the difference between being ready for a manager and wanting a manager cannot be overemphasized.

You know you are ready for a manager when you are now finding it hard to balance the business and the creation sides of music and when managers start headhunting you.

It is not advisable to go out looking for managers, the idea is for them to come to you and not the other way round.

Ideally, you want to have several management offers on the table and then go on to choose the one best for you.

If you are struggling with balancing the business side of music and however not getting any offers from managers, don’t go hiring the first manager you can find, get an admin assistant instead that will be responsible for responding to emails, pitching shows and taking care of the day to day activities.

Once you ascertain you are ready for a manager, there are details you should look for or be wary of in a manager. This will go a long way in scoring the best manager that will align with your brand, values and mission.

Get a manager that understands music

This goes without saying, but a music manager needs to understand how music as business works.

Most importantly, your manager must understand how music promotion works as it plays a big role in building your brand and cementing you in the industry.

This requires knowledge of the music industry. A pro manager should follow the latest trends in the industry, be aware of up and coming artists, and know how best to promote your music.

It is difficult to promote something when you know nothing about the industry. When interviewing a manager, make sure you ask plenty of questions. Test their knowledge to ensure they have a good sense of the music industry.

In part two (2) of Tips on Engaging a Manager in the Music Industry, I am going to touch on the following:

  1. Get a manager you trust and get along with
  2. Get a level-headed manager
  3. Get a manager willing to test the waters with you

Israel SEBENZO® is a Singer, Songwriter and Artist & Repertoire (A&R) Executive

Continue Reading

Business

Brian and Mutumwa’s Chat Room Part 3 – The Constitutionality of The Reconstruction Act and Specification Measures in the SMM Saga

Brian Tawanda Manyati

Published

on

Brian and Mutumwa`s Chat Room is a zwnews24 column on an interview series between businessman Mutumwa Mawere and 1873 Radio`s Brian Tawanda Manyati (BTM) under the Connections2Communities (C2C) Conversations. 

In these interviews, Brian and Mutumwa talk about various issues that happen across the spectrum of human life in order to raise community awareness and participation towards societal development. 

This third episode touches on Presidential Powers as well as Specification and Reconstruction Orders with intention to analyze and assess the impact thereof on the socio-economic environment, with the ZIMRE judgment still being our case study.

BTM: Mr Mawere, welcome to today’s episode of the Brian and Mutumwa’s Chatroom. Would you please shed more light on the constitutional rights of THZ in relation to its property being the shares held in UKI and ENDURITE and the rights of ZIMRE in relation to SMM? 

Mutumwa Mawere: “It was SMM that was placed under extrajudicial reconstruction and not ZIMRE since ZIMRE was a separate legal persona with its own creditors and shareholders. Zimre was commanded into reconstruction without its knowledge and consent.”

The role of the Investigator was to protect the property of the specified and yet the intent was to use the rights issue to dilute and compromise the control of ZIMRE by THZ’s 2 subsidiaries. 

The question is on whether a specification order can be used to enable the divestment of assets and deprivation of property rights. If one follows the facts of this case, is it easy to arrive at a conclusion that the Court was used to undermine the rule of law?

BTM: Section No. 3 of the old Constitution had the following areas for consideration:

# Protection from deprivation of property – No property of any kind can be compulsorily acquired or taken away except under the authority of the law.

# Protection of the law – every person is entitled of the law, e.g. if charged with a criminal offense; he or she should be given fair trial within a reasonable time by an independent and unbiased court, open to the public.

From your understanding, which section was used in the ZIMRE case?

Mutumwa Mawere: As regards the ZIMRE judgment, we should be asking what the role of Mawere was in the court proceedings before Judge Makarau. How can a judge dismiss an application that is before the Court simply on account of the status of a witness? 

BTM: What the judge did was tantamount to lifting the corporate veil and there was no corporate fraud against anyone under the circumstances of the ZIMRE case to have warranted lifting of a veil of THZ to the extent of attaching a witness to its matters.

Mutumwa Mawere: Did the judge make any observation on corporate veil or she erroneously believed that a deponent can create and disqualify authority? Was there a dispute before requiring an inquiry into the corporate veil issue?

BTM: I am exposing the actual thing she did, albeit incorrectly.

Mutumwa Mawere: Do you agree that the learned Judge erred in not having regard to the fact that it was THZH’s litigation that was before her and it was irrelevant as to who deposed to the affidavit in support of THZH’s application? What does equal justice under law mean to you? If Makarau did not honor this promise, do you on reflection think she is fit to be a judge?

Mutumwa Mawere: What does equal justice mean?

BTM: Indiscrimination e.g. non-discrimination of a specified person.

Mutumwa Mawere: I mean generally. Equal justice is usually taken to mean equal access to justice, which in turn is taken to mean access to law. But as is frequently noted, a purely procedural understanding by no means captures our aspirations and for a reason those who receive their “day in court” do not always feel that “justice has been done. Her reading of the law in relation to specification is what she relied upon to conclude as you do?

BTM: In my view, even though you were specified, you were not part of the dispute, but THZ though not so specified, she sought to use it still to barricade you from even testifying, and that was harsh on her part.

Mutumwa Mawere: Is this not a separate matter dealing with the limitations imposed on a specified person? Do you agree that the circumference of what a specified person can do or not is a subject matter that has yet to be sufficiently tested for a shared understanding to be established?

BTM: Yes. A company has separate legal persona from the natural person as per Salomon versus Salomon & Co Ltd (1897), however, the action of looking into the company to identify its owner/s is known as “piercing or lifting the corporate veil” as per the cases of Daimler Company Ltd v Continental Tyre Co (1916) or Gumede v Bandhla Vukani Bakiti (1950). Fraud cases often cause lifting of corporate veil to apply especially where corrupt shareowners or senior executives or owner managers operate under the guise of a company which they earmark for winding up in order to avoid heavy fines (such as the penalty of gaol) should their crimes land them in court (out of knowing the company cannot go to gaol).

Mutumwa Mawere: There was no dispute of fraud before Makarau as far as I know. Mawere was not a party to the proceedings. He was authorized by an aggrieved party. None of the companies in the cause were accused of fraud in this specific matter.

BTM: Yes the aggrieved party THZ gave permission to Mawere to be a witness. THZ wasn’t specified. It wasn’t under the investigator. Only Mawere was under the investigator’s ambit, albeit under a separate matter with nothing to do with Zimre. So I am trying as much to find out how strong or weak would be the thinking that THZ must have authorized Mawere through the investigator, or that Mawere himself for knowing he is under an investigator must have gone to the investigator and said THZ wants me witnessing do you permit it, or anything else along those lines? Help me to be full proof with just this part.

Mutumwa Mawere: The facts are as what they are. The judge was confronted with a case of whether to recognize the authority of an administrator to interpose himself in the affairs of separate juristic entities especially where constitutional and property rights were involved. Did she discharge this duty of defending rights? 

BTM: When asked to quantify, I am 90% towards saying No, she did not speculate. The question is on finding out how she reached that position and testing the strength or weakness of the pathway she used to getting to that.

Mutumwa Mawere: Why speculate when the primary basis is explained? According to her a specified person enjoys qualified rights even as a witness.

BTM: The judge says “if I have made an error I have another basis, we need to then give close scrutiny to that basis she only is fully or assuredly relying on it in coming to her ruling.

Mutumwa Mawere: We can only rely on what she converted into writing and not what could have been in her mind.

BTM: I thought that too, may be I went a bit further, that does it have to be stated in black and white or it has to be applied as a matter of a principle of law simply? It is why I started today with wanting to read cases where this principle of veil uncovering was used on my own.

Mutumwa Mawere: If you want to create a new dispute, then you can no longer rely on the judgment. The court was approached by parties to a dispute and that dispute was provoked and triggered by ZIMRE in proposing a rights issue and giving its directors powers to allocate shares without shareholders being given the opportunity to exercise their rights over this action that could have the effect of unfettered discretionary power being given to directors. 

BTM: No I do not want to create a new dispute. I am still dwelling on the ZIMRE judgment. 

Mutumwa Mawere: The issue was about the control of ZIMRE that was now a subject of conspiracy between the management of the company and the government whose actors had created a series of events to prevent any legal resistance to the corrupt scheme to take control via a purported rights offer.

BTM: This I located using the judgment yes. If you remember when I said “The second resolution of the ZIMRE EGM as read from the judgment sought to make a renounceable rights offer which would result in unissued shares controlled by the directors for an indefinite period.”

I went on to ask, “Was it, in your view, so as to create a vacuum for creation of a shareholder later on, thus diluting control later on?”

And stated that, “If yes one of the proxies of the two associate companies, which is you, whose vote against was acknowledged while that of Mr. De Bourbon was rejected, noticed this loophole and hence you wanted your proxy vote standing against such potentially calculated dilution (only borrowing a term from financial reporting it may stand akin to “aggressive accounting” whatever was being done, whereby citable laws/principles/rules/standards are used yes, but in a creative/evasion sense that the prudent/compliance sense). 

The above said, however, the other proxy representing the associate entities Endurite and UKI as appointed by the directors of the associate entities and per investigator’s approval may genuinely have not picked out this loophole or were in a deliberate ploy against their parent’s (THZ’s) stake or they acted the manner they did as part of seeking return favors from government (in the sense that since given both of them had been deemed as specified and could only do things through the investigator which on its own is a potential case of undue influence/duress), they so voted for the resolution and not in line with their parent. 

The judge too may have not picked the ‘statecraft’ but in using the umbrella of the specification order, picked a procedural wrong on your part thus the lack of locus standi based ruling reached in the ZIMRE judgment.”

Mutumwa Mawere: Therefore, the question would be whether the judge was blind to the scheme whose effect was to undermine the rights that the constitution compelled her to protect and defend. The idea is to focus on the key issues arising from what was before the Court and whether the promise of justice was met.

BTM: Furthermore, kindly note that below are 3 questions merged. In the case of Brown v British Abrassive Wheel Company (1919) on alteration of articles of association, the company needed additional finance and the majority shareholders holding 98% of capital were prepared to provide this if they could buy out the 2% minority. The minority refused to sell. The articles were then altered to give the majority shareholders the right to buy the 2% shares. It was held that such alteration was not for the benefit of the company. It amounted to oppression of the minority. What have you to say Mr. Mawere on the above case in relation to the ZIMRE judgment?

Am I observing right that in the ZIMRE judgment what the judge may have not noticed was a crafty intention to place renounceable rights in the hands of the directors for an indefinite period of time, but potentially this could lead to alteration of control of ZIMRE, creation of a swayed majority later, and lead to an effective buy out of a minority created from what was the associate stake of Endurite and UKI at first? Or simply to create a case of an Endurite and UKI which will now be a toothless bulldog say from having their stake altered from state of significant influence (associate status) to a simple interest. With this above also what becomes of interest is what has become of ZIMRE to date post the ZIMRE judgment of 2005, shareholder ship wise. May we benefit using hindsight?

Mutumwa Mawere: There is no suggestion that ZIMRE needed capital and this issue was not before the Court. The issue if it existed would have been known to UKI and Endurite. The significant shareholders of the company were deliberately left out of the loop and the case you refer to bears no resemblance to the true facts of the ZIMRE case. The judge was supposed to look at the facts and the law. The issue that the judge ought to have looked at is whether the Minister should have had the cake and eat it. He specified UKI, Endurite, SMM, and myself and in doing so became a gatekeeper to these parties from seeking the benefit of using the courts to defend their constitutional rights. The resolutions were passed and implemented resulting in the government’s nominees buying the shares placed under the control of ZIMRE directors.

BTM: According to our insolvency law, as governed by the Insolvency Act 06:04, insolvency in general occurs in two ways: first a debtor overweighed by his or her debt and cautiously pestered by his or her creditors recognizes that his or her position is precarious and voluntarily surrenders his or her own estate for the benefit of the creditors; and second, by way of compulsory sequestration whereby the creditors make a court application to have the debtor ordered as insolvent or taken to have committed an act of insolvency. Usually when he or she leaves the country or being out of the country or remains absent with intent to evade or delay the payment of debt. Is any of this particularly relevant to the matters of SMM kindly?

Critical to this is the Insolvency Act which seeks to rehabilitate, because the Insolvency estate remains in the hands of the trustee (basically the investigator in SMM’s case) until rehabilitation. The State clearly created something outside the law with the Presidential Powers regulations of 2004 used to place SMM on reconstruction and later went on to the courts in Nov 2005 to get that act graced at law now. A single creditor for SMM was created name the State, hence the use of phrase “State indebtedness”. Effectively a compulsory sequestration of SMM was sought by a solo creditor namely “the State” in a procedure more or less similar to that the Insolvency Act provides for, but in SMM’s case the Presidential Powers regulations remains an order coming from outside the confines of the law including the Insolvency Act itself. 

Because of this anomaly, I am failing to find how a compulsory reconstruction order as was created, alters the duties of a specified person (the insolvent person now officially declared so using a regulation as of 2004 created outside the law), duties which by and large are similar to duties of an insolvent person during sequestration? What was really going on?

Mutumwa Mawere: There is no comparison between the Insolvency Act and the Reconstruction Act. The Reconstruction Act presumes that a company is divisible into state indebted and Insolvent class and the rest that are not when a company is a company irrespective of who it is indebted to. The equality before the law doctrine precludes any creditor being a special one like the state. The constitution is founded on the doctrine of separation of powers that precludes the executive to assume powers reserved for the courts in the case of Insolvency. It is the court in the event of a dispute that has inherent jurisdiction to determine the existence of indebtedness between equal debtor/creditor parties. It is only when the indebtedness is established that the quantum can be ascertained by the court before insolvency can be tested and established. A creditor is barred from unilaterally establishing indebtedness, quantum and insolvency.

BTM: Furthermore, the duties of an insolvent person during sequestration cause all property he or she acquires to remain in the insolvent estate. He or she can enter into valid contracts but an appointed trustee (admin/investigator) can opt out if transaction prejudices the insolvent. He or she may also follow any profession or occupation or enter into employment contracts and may be sued or sue in his or her own rights, etc. Somehow, this Insolvency law is enforcing the insolvent person’s rights, and so, how come the Presidential Powers regulations of 2004 that the Minister used to allege the Insolvency claim and subsequently unleash a reconstruction order immediately, are more like usurping all the duties (effectively rights) a specified person has during reconstruction (sequestration)?

Is it the case that someone is was trying to implement the second way of coming up with insolvency, however, wrongly? That is, by way of compulsory sequestration whereby the creditors make a court application (but here State as a Solo creditor) would have the debtor ordered as insolvent or taken to have committed an act of insolvency as is usually the case when he or she leaves the country or being out of the country, or remains absent with intent to evade or delay the payment of his or her debt? Did the in the ZIMRE judgment the judge put all these things to test before coming to the position of the specified individual being improperly placed before the court?

Mutumwa Mawere: There should be no confusion as to whether insolvency is akin to reconstruction. Why would anyone have authored the Reconstruction Act if another remedy existed to achieve an intended end? The desired end could not be achieved without inventing new facts and circumstances. Specification was intended to cripple an aggrieved person from challenging the intended expropriation without compensation scheme. They knew or ought to have known that their actions would be challenged and so they preempted this by amputating any potential aggrieved parties. There was never an insolvency claim as you allege. The state was never a creditor of SMM to give it locus to benefit from the provisions of the Companies and Insolvency Act.

BTM: Is this the correct sequence of events to you, that in the ZIMRE judgment the judge threw away the key, the judge who is a person not necessarily the judiciary, threw away the keys, following an extra judicial specification that the judge placed reliance on, and that specification order turned out to in actual fact to be an asset freezing order that sought not to protect your rights as an insolvent/specified person as declared. That it turned out to be something else, what else did it turn out to be in your own view? Is it that it sought in actual fact to disarm you while the State dealt with your assets, while persons attached to it willy-nilly dealt a blow to your rights?

Mutumwa Mawere: The question is whether the Bill of Rights can be tempered by administrative measures involving a government official issuing an order that has the effect of divesting and depriving a person of rights including access to courts and being informed prior to any adverse order? SMM was never insolvent. Not sure where you are getting this notion. Just take the facts as they are than speculate.

Brian Tawanda Manyati is a Chartered Governor and an Accounting Technician. 

Contacts: LinkedIn – briantawandamanyati

Email – tawandamanyati@gmail.com

To register for C2C Mentorship on Corporate Literacy and Judicial Reform programs, you pay an annual fee of USD36 using the link https://zonfulenergy.com/membership/

Continue Reading

Business

The Corporate Laboratory – SMM’s Ruins and The Untold Story of General Beltings

zwnews24 Editor

Published

on

The role of the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange in promoting and protecting the rights of shareholders of listed companies has oftentimes escaped public scrutiny thus permitting corporate absurdities such as the General Beltings Pty Limited transaction.

General Beltings is a listed company in Zimbabwe and in 2004, it was a subsidiary of SMM Holdings Private Limited (SMM), an entity which was wholly owned by SMM Holdings Limited (SMMH).

SMM on its own was registered and operating in terms of Zimbabwean laws. 

Even though SMM was a company operating in terms of the Companies Act, it is interesting and puzzling to grasp why a decree was promulgated allowing SMM’s shareholder and directors to be divested and deprived of the right to control and direct their company.

For example, an Administrator, Mr Gwaradzimba, was appointed by the then Minister of Justice, Chinamasa, to assume the control and management of SMM on 6 September 2004. 

This law not only offends the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers but allowed the Minister of Justice to unilaterally and arbitrarily identify companies that he deemed in his sole discretion to be an associate of SMM to be targeted and victimized.

This was the fate of General Beltings which found itself under the control of an Administrator without following any due process of the law. 

Even though there are glaring and flagrant violations of corporate rights in the SMM and General Beltings saga, it boggles the mind to note that both in parliament and in the media, appropriate legal and constitutional questions pertaining to these economic maladies are not being raised.

A case in point is the key legal question on whether one company can be found guilty simply on account of perceived and not tested association. 

With respect to the constitutional muster, can a law that divests and deprives rights pass this test? 

It should not only be those with a keen eye and passion for entrepreneurship who see that that Zimbabwe ‘second dispensation is still legally and politically immoral since it does not allow people to appreciate the centrality of the rule of law in delivering the promise of prosperity. 

For example, the presumed purchase of shares held by the captured SMM is a calculated corporate heist which those that are responsible for protecting the rights of businesses and individuals can be found to be complicity in undermining the rule of law. 

This kind of vulture capitalism exposes the moral bankruptcy in the public when it comes to corporate matters and this in helps to hamper the development of the country since investors are a people with a keen interest on in subtle developments that have an impact of their money.

As such, if they witness corporate heists in a country, they become cautious and hesitant to invest and so under such circumstances, they tend to take their funds somewhere else where the rule of law abides and where investment has a greater probability of using good returns.

Under the Corporate Laboratory, we study and analyze corporate developments with a view to understand business circumstances and their impact to the economy and to the general public.

Continue Reading

Trending