The Financial Gazette

Matters legal with Vote Muza
RECENT reports about a determination by the Competition and Tariff Commission binding ZESA Holdings to desist from certain improper trade practices and unfair treatment of electricity consumers has created public awareness about the existence of this body. Since 1998 when the Competition Act (Chapter 14:28) (the Act) came into existence the commission’s involvement in regulating competition and unfair trade practices has largely been restricted to mergers and takeovers, an area that the ordinary person has very little interest in.
It would appear that from now on, the public with the assistance of consumer bodies and human rights practitioners are going to be making use of the commission more often in order to bring those business organisations indulging in unfair competition into line. But before I venture more into the discussion, I find it necessary to look at some important aspects of the Act. 
The preamble provides a valuable insight about the noble objectives of this law. It states that the purpose of the Act, among other things, is to promote and maintain competition in the economy, to provide for the prevention and control of restrictive practices, the regulation of mergers, the prevention and control of monopoly situations and prohibition of unfair practices. 
Section five of the Act provides for the functions of the Competition and Tariff Comm-ission and these shall be to encourage and promote competition in all sectors of the economy, to reduce barriers to entry into any sector of the economy or to any form of economic activity, to investigate,  discourage and prevent restrictive practices, to study trends towards incre-ased  economic concentration, with a view to the investigation of monopoly situations and the prevention of such situations where there are contrary to the public interest, and to monitor prices, costs and profits in any industry as directed by the Minister. 
In carrying any investigation, the commission needs not to rely on reports by complainants but may  take the initiative once they suspect that a certain business might  be flaunting the spirit of competition. Section 34 is instructive for the commission may investigate  any sector where it has reason to believe that its tariff threatens to cause detriment to our local industry. Further, they can also investigate any complaint that arises from the importation, actual or prospective of any goods, that may be detrimental to local industry.A reading of the Act appears to confirm that monopolies are perfectly permissible where they are deemed to be in the public interest. Indeed, in a capitalist economy like ours wholesale liberalisation might leave the public to open abuse by uncouth, and greedy co-operations. Government therefore treats this area with great caution because of its sensitivities.
Comparatively, and globally that is, governments have retained control over certain key sectors of the economy and illustrations are the transport industry and this is inclusive of road, rail and air. Limited private investment has also been allowed in the power generation sector.
Another controversial and interesting observation is that the highly influential broadcasting and  telecommunication services have largely drawn the interest of politicians hence again, limited private  participation in these sectors has been allowed locally. However, our government is making strides to transform the unholy monopoly of the State media that is being seen as seriously undermining the public’s right to communicate and broadcast.
While State participation in the economy is essential, it must not be exercised to the detriment of the economy and the public. State involvement in key sectors must  be driven by sound economic principles that bring positive spin-offs  not only to the State but also to the economy at large. 
Our history of economic management tells a sad story as rabid State interest in the management of almost every sector of the economy culminated in the collapse of several parastatals and State-controlled enterprises. A case in point is ZUPCO, NOCZIM, and Air Zimbabwe. The inclusive government appears to have learnt from the mistakes of the past administration and are taking serious steps to transform management of our parastatals that have hitherto been docile monopolies.
The Competition and Tariff Commission must feel encouraged to take the bull by its horns and investigate the monopoly of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings. In this day and age,  and if one is to compare with trends in the region, it is grossly unfair as well as illegal that a country as advanced as ours should have one broadcaster.
Because of political interest by certain sections  of those in government,  the public is forced to endure mediocre broadcasting standards and at the same time be forced to pay licenses for a product that is not up to scratch. 
The  main objective of the Act is very noble and this is to create an economy that is vibrant, driven by sound competition with costs and prices that are acceptable to the public, it being for the sustainable growth of our economic hegemony. The Act needs support of politicians, business people and members of the public.
What better time to use this law than now when our economy is  in the recovery stage  and in need of vigilant supervision.
l Vote Muza is a partner with Muza and Nyapadi Legal Practitioners. E-mail: muza This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Website: muzaandnyapadi.com

Comments (2)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment