The publication of Mutapa Investment Fund’s so-called “first audited financial statements” is being presented as a watershed moment for transparency and reform in the management of Zimbabwe’s public assets. 

Yet, when examined against Zimbabwe’s political economy, institutional realities, and global best practice in sovereign wealth fund governance, these claims collapse under the weight of unanswered questions, contradictions, and troubling precedents. 

Far from resolving legitimate public concerns, the announcement deepens suspicions that Mutapa is less a vehicle for national development and more an instrument for elite accumulation shielded from scrutiny.

At the heart of the problem is not whether Mutapa has produced audited accounts, but whether such audits can be trusted in a system where state institutions have long been captured, weakened, or repurposed to serve political interests. 

In Zimbabwe, audits have rarely translated into accountability. 

From Auditor-General reports detailing looting at ZESA, NRZ, Parliament, Air Zimbabwe and local authorities, to repeated revelations of procurement scandals with no prosecutions, “clean” or “qualified” audits have coexisted comfortably with grand corruption. 

An audit, in isolation, does not equal transparency. 

It is merely one tool within a broader ecosystem of checks and balances—an ecosystem that has been deliberately dismantled around Mutapa.

If the government were genuinely committed to accountability, why was Mutapa removed from the Ministry of Finance and placed directly under the Office of the President? 

Why was Parliament effectively stripped of oversight over an entity that controls assets with a reported fair value of US$15 billion? 

In well-run democracies, sovereign wealth funds are insulated from political interference but firmly anchored in law, parliamentary scrutiny, and public disclosure. 

In Zimbabwe’s case, “independence” has meant insulation from accountability, not from politics.

The contrast with the international examples cited by President Emmerson Mnangagwa is stark. 

Temasek Holdings in Singapore publishes detailed annual reports, discloses its investment philosophy, portfolio performance, governance structures, board composition, and remuneration. 

It is accountable to Singapore’s Parliament through the Ministry of Finance and operates within a strong rule-of-law environment. 

Khazanah Nasional in Malaysia, despite political challenges, is subject to parliamentary processes and has faced public scrutiny when performance faltered. 

Ethiopia Investment Holdings, often cited by Zimbabwean officials, operates within a state-led model but is still overseen by a legal framework that has not systematically hollowed out accountability institutions to the extent seen in Zimbabwe.

None of these funds were created by bypassing parliamentary oversight in contexts where corruption is endemic and institutions are weak. 

None operate under exemptions from public procurement laws in countries ranked as persistently corrupt as Zimbabwe. 

To invoke these examples without acknowledging the radically different governance environments is not comparative analysis; it is political theatre.

The Kuvimba Mining House transaction exemplifies why public scepticism is justified. 

Mutapa’s acquisition of a 35 percent stake for US$1.6 billion has never been adequately explained, justified, or independently scrutinised. 

Observers such as The Sentry raised serious concerns that the valuation was inflated and that Treasury Bills were effectively used to bail out politically connected private shareholders, notably those linked to Kudakwashe Tagwirei. 

This was not a neutral commercial transaction; it was a transfer of public risk to protect private interests. 

In a country starved of investment in health, education, water infrastructure and electricity, deploying scarce public resources in such opaque deals is indefensible.

Equally troubling is the financial performance being celebrated. 

Mutapa reportedly controls assets with a fair value of US$15 billion, yet recorded a surplus of just US$3.6 million and total comprehensive income of US$8 million, with dividends of US$5.8 million over 15 months. 

Even allowing for legacy debts and turnaround challenges, these figures raise fundamental questions. 

How does an “investment fund” of this magnitude, controlling monopolies and strategic assets across mining, energy, telecommunications and finance, generate returns that are effectively negligible? 

In any serious investment context, such performance would trigger forensic scrutiny, board shake-ups, and parliamentary inquiries—not praise.

Nor does the repeated emphasis on “long-term vision” and “strategic patience” withstand scrutiny in Zimbabwe’s context. 

Long-termism presupposes trust, stability, and credible institutions. 

Zimbabwe has instead witnessed decades of asset stripping, debt accumulation, and politically driven decision-making within state enterprises. 

To ask citizens to trust that this time is different—without transparency, oversight, or consequences for past abuses—is to demand faith where evidence is required.

The secrecy surrounding Mutapa’s operations further undermines confidence. 

Why are detailed audited accounts not publicly accessible for independent analysis? 

Why are procurement processes shielded from scrutiny? 

Why are board appointments and executive remuneration not openly and proactively disclosed to the public?

In countries with functioning sovereign wealth funds, transparency is not treated as a favour granted to citizens but as a foundational obligation.

Legal challenges, such as those raised by Frederick Nyamande, underscore that this is not merely a political debate but a constitutional one. 

Concentrating unchecked control over vast public resources in the executive violates the spirit, if not the letter, of constitutional governance. 

We are not opposing investment or reform; we are warning against the institutionalisation of looting under the guise of modernisation.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Zimbabwe needs a coherent strategy to manage state assets. 

It does. 

The question is whether such a strategy can succeed when it is built on opacity, executive dominance, and public exclusion. 

Sovereign wealth funds work where citizens trust the state and where the state earns that trust through openness, accountability, and the rule of law. 

Zimbabwe currently offers the opposite environment.

Until Mutapa is returned to robust parliamentary oversight, subjected to procurement laws, forced to publish full and independently verifiable financial disclosures, and insulated from politically connected rent-seeking, its audited accounts will remain unconvincing. 

In a country where institutions have been captured and accountability neutralised, secrecy is not a neutral administrative choice—it is a red flag. 

© Copyright The Zimbabwean. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).