Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:17:43 +0000
We are totally, vehemently and fervidly opposed to power restrictions to Mopani or any other mine for that matter.
There is absolutely no reason why three companies on which the Zambian government is represented should have allowed the deterioration of a situation to the extent of restriction of power and imminent sabotage of production and loss of jobs could have happened.
This is totally irresponsible and those behind it must be brought to book for failure to discharge their duties in alerting government timely to a deteriorating situation that has led to this impasse.
The government is represented in Mopani, CEC, and ZESCO. There is no excuse for the conflict that has consumed the three organisations to the extent that thousands of jobs are now on the line.
The negligence of duty of all the directors representing government in these institutions must be punished and severely so
It would be highly irresponsible, in our view for a surgeon to deny treatment or indeed remove an oxygen mask from a critically ill patient on account of a disputed bill. If anything fee paying hospitals around the world admit and treat accident and equally critical patients, before ascertaining payment.
Equally it would be highly irresponsible for any Union to call for labour withdraw at the first instance without exhausting negotiation procedures. These procedures a well codified.
We are convinced beyond any doubt that restricting power at first instance does not serve our best national interests. We should have exhausted conflict resolution provision of the power Purchase Act before switching off power.
And our Zambian directors on all these institutions should have fought for this rather than sit back and watch the impasse develop. or the mines to be denied power and therefore compromise production thereby putting thousands of jobs on the line on account of a tariff dispute that should be resolved by legal or statutory means.
Public policy considerations, defined as courses of action, regulatory measures, laws and funding promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives, includes the decision that Government has taken to remove subsidy from electricity generation at transportation.
This policy has been defined and is not subject of debate. At the same time agreements must accommodate issues of Force Majeure, of which public policy may create from time to time. It would be foolhardy for any institution to disregard Government policy to remove electricity subsidy to ensure full cost recovery.
This policy has been determined to make the energy sector more attractive for investment and to ensure that Zesco recovers the cost of generation.
What is in contention is the manner in which the policy is to be implemented by the various stakeholders including Zesco and CEC on one hand the mining Industry on the other.
There is a need to make a very clear distinction between feelings and emotions on one hand and facts with reality on the other.
Most Zambians understandably feel cheated, frustrated and at worst outraged by the reported refusal by Mopani to pay at the new electricity tariffs given that domestic consumers have already been made to pay at the new, cost recovery rates. They therefore feel it proper and justified that CEC has restricted power until the company is prepared to at the new rate.
The fact and reality is that Mopani and CEC have a power purchase agreement that is still valid and therefore legally enforceable and it is for this reason they have gone to court to compel CEC to abide by terms of the agreement which stipulates arbitration in the event of conflict.
Working on this premise Mopani has applied for the Directors of CEC to be penalized for contempt of court after they refused to restore power in spite of a court order demanding that they immediately restore it.
There are two sides to the argument. The first one is purely nationalistic and devoid of niceties of contractual law and the second is an argument based on the law and the existence of a legally binding argument.
In our view the dispute between Mopani and CEC is not beyond settlement. In the absence of the actual premium tariff that CEC is charging the mines, it is premature to judge any of the two parties to the agreement until a neutral person examines the same and renders an informed decision.
Meanwhile it is our strong view that mines should be allowed to operate at optimum capacity while the dispute is resolved.
