Guvamatanga in a spot of bother
`By Brighton Mugari`
IN SEPTEMBER 2024, Finance secretary George Guvamatanga was in a spot of bother over an array of alleged offshore properties and other lavish assets.
Fast forward to this year, and the man finds himself in almost exactly the same predicament — except that the sources and circumstances of his misery are slightly different.
While Guvamatanga was savagely attacked over claims that he owned more than 12 affluent houses in South Africa, and amid criticism of certain merchants’ conduct, unscrupulous investors and socio-political theories spewed by the late Blessed Geza about a so-called clique of powerful non-state actors behind President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s throne, he has come under renewed fire following a Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) compliance exercise at Borrowdale Brooke (BB).
The development has sparked accusations that Guvamatanga owns as many as 25 properties in the gated community — claims for which no documentary evidence has publicly been produced.
“The BB homeowners association wishes to advise residents that Zimra has requested information relating to properties within the estate. The information (sought relates to) property owner, tenant’s name (if any), lease commencement date..,” read a leaked memo and notice that has been widely circulating on social media, adding the “request was being made in terms of section 39 of the Income Tax Act”.
“In terms of the said provision, the association is under a legal obligation to comply with the request. We, therefore, advise residents that (we are) working with Zimra and will be releasing the information shortly. No information beyond the statutory request shall be disclosed,” it said.
While some of his miffed detractors have sought to ascribe this development and policy direction to Guvamatanga, the rumour mill has also gone into overdrive over the ex-Barclays Bank chief executive’s alleged 25 houses in the enclosure — with some of the claims seeking to reinforce perceptions of the bureaucrat-cum-businessman as corrupt or malfeasant.
Some of these claims and whisper campaigns — which have also found their way into fly-by-night digital publications — appear calculated to “set the cat among the pigeons” and potentially pit the besieged Treasury boss against an institution over which his ministry has oversight.
But the claim that Guvamatanga owns nearly 25 BB houses remains just that — a claim — unless supported by credible and independently verifiable evidence.
At any rate, if those making the accusations genuinely want to “educate Zimbabweans, and the world at large about the Victor Farm owner’s alleged misdeeds”, they should surely provide title deed numbers or other documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged malfeasance, assuming they have access to real and unimpeachable information.
While the idea or purpose of this opinion is not to vouch for “Saint George’s” piety and probity, the 55-year-old businessman does own properties in the plush northern Harare area, although the suggestion that the number approaches 25 has not been substantiated publicly.
As Guvamatanga himself told us — even at the height of the vicious 2024 attacks, including allegations that he was in the habit of bilking or shaking down government contractors — he enjoyed an illustrious banking career, which he says enabled him to acquire houses in Africa, Europe and other jurisdictions from as far back as 2003, build a real estate company over the past 20 years and establish a highly productive farming enterprise that has afforded him a comfortable life.
And if he declared about 40 of those properties upon joining government in 2018, as previously claimed by Forward Madyira, a guest writer in one of Zimbabwe’s leading dailies, then that would be a significant development — although one that would ideally be backed by publicly verifiable records or documents.
Crucially, such asset declarations could help establish whether some of the properties were acquired years before Guvamatanga joined the public service and help settle the constant speculation around his affairs.
On the other hand, holding public office inevitably invites questions about wealth and potential conflicts of interest, making transparency particularly important for senior officials occupying influential positions.
And if Guvamatanga had “so many skeletons in his closet”, as some of his critics allege, questions could reasonably be asked about why he would have declared those assets to his superiors in the first place.
But alas, this is Zimbabwe — a typically fractious, politically charged and polarised society where allegations and speculation can sometimes travel much faster than independently established facts.
This, therefore, gives one the feeling that some of the criticism directed against people like Guvamatanga — top civil servants in often thankless jobs — can sometimes become too virulent and unfair.
His lawyers have previously argued that the properties associated with him were acquired using “free funds from his Barclays plc days”. There is, of course, nothing inherently unlawful about creating wealth or investing legitimately in value-preserving assets such as real estate.
At the same time, such explanations do not mean questions about the assets of senior public officials should be discouraged. The appropriate standard should be the same for everyone: allegations must be supported by evidence, while public officials should be prepared to account for their assets where the law requires them to do so.
Like many senior officials, Guvamatanga might have resigned himself to the fact that scrutiny comes with the territory. But that scrutiny should be based on facts rather than unsupported claims, even as he continues to play his part in efforts to reset the economy and has never claimed infallibility.
In as much as yesteryear’s bee stings and pushback were partly triggered by the burly man’s moves to “minimize transit fuel-fraud”, blacklist errant suppliers and introduce other measures, the latest attacks have coincided with Zimra’s efforts to increase tax compliance and Guvamatanga’s push to raise tax collections for national development.
He declared in February that Zimbabwe was “not overtaxed”, arguing that tax regimes were broadly in line with regional trends and that the country’s tax-to-gross domestic product ratio — at about 17 percent — needed to rise towards 22 percent, with an ambition to grow annual revenue beyond US$10 billion and help make Zimbabwe a proper middle-income economy.
However, it cannot simply be assumed that criticism directed at Guvamatanga is retaliation for those policies. Zimra has said its Borrowdale Brooke information request forms part of routine compliance checks and is not targeted specifically at wealthy individuals or residents of a particular area.
And despite being involved in some of the government’s recent economic and diplomatic developments — including Zimbabwe’s engagement with international financial institutions and creditors — Guvamatanga and other senior officials continue to find themselves subjected to criticism, scepticism and, at times, conjecture.
The Finance secretary — a colourful and self-assured man even in his ideologies — might also have to accept that, for as long as he continues to push aggressive and sometimes unpopular policies and changes, he must expect intense scrutiny and pushback.
But scrutiny and accusation are two different things.
And perhaps that is what this latest episode ultimately reveals about the quality of our national discourse: public officials should be questioned and held accountable, but serious allegations should ultimately stand or fall on the strength of the evidence behind them.
