Boeing has admitted that it knew about a problem with its 737 Max jets a year before the aircraft was involved in two fatal accidents, but took no action.
The firm said it had inadvertently made an alarm feature optional instead of standard, but insisted that this did not jeopardise flight safety.
All 737 Max planes were grounded in March after an Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed, killing 157 people.
Five months earlier, 189 people were killed in a Lion Air crash.
The worldwide fleet of 737 Max planes totalled 387 aircraft at the time of the grounding.
The feature at issue is known as the Angle of Attack (AOA) Disagree alert and was designed to let pilots know when two different sensors were reporting conflicting data.
The planemaker said it had intended to provide the feature as standard, but did not realise until deliveries had begun that it was only available if airlines purchased an optional indicator.
It said it had intended to deal with the problem in a later software update.
Boeing maintained that the software problem “did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation”.
Analysis
Theo Leggett, business correspondent
Boeing has admitted it was aware of a flaw on board the 737 Max months before the first accident, involving a Lion Air jet off the coast of Indonesia.
But was that flaw a factor in that accident? Would a working “AOA Disagree” alert actually have made any difference?
It’s highly unlikely.
All it would have told the pilots was that the two angle-of-attack sensors aboard the plane were giving very different readings.
This mattered, because the MCAS system, which has been implicated in the crash, relied on data from a single sensor. A fault in that sensor may well have been the trigger for the crash.
But the pilots were not even aware that MCAS existed. It was a system designed to improve the handling of the aircraft and to operate in the background.
So the knowledge that a sensor had failed would probably not have helped. In fact, it might even have increased confusion in the cockpit.
Nevertheless, this will add to the pressure on Boeing – because despite being aware of an issue with the 737 Max, it initially chose not to inform airlines.
Boeing insists the AOA Disagree alert was not necessary for safe flight.
But critics will be asking whether the company was complacent – and whether there is anything else which the company has chosen not to pass on to its customers, affecting this type of aircraft or its other models.
Presentational grey line The US Federal Aviation Administration told Reuters news agency that Boeing had not informed it of the software issue until November 2018, a month after the Lion Air crash.
The FAA said the issue was “low risk”, but said Boeing could have helped to “eliminate possible confusion” by letting it know earlier.
The flight angle of the plane has been identified as a factor in the disasters. Boeing has said that in both fatal crashes, erroneous AOA data was fed to the jet’s Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), an anti-stall system which has come under scrutiny since the crashes.
South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) will kick-start the economy and deal with corruption, it vowed on Sunday, three days before elections at which its overwhelming majority faces its sternest test since the party rose to power.
Less than 30 km (18.6 miles) away, the country’s second-biggest opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), challenged the ANC’s governance record and promised a tougher stance on corruption and economic policies to target racial inequality.
Though the ANC has won each parliamentary election since the transition from apartheid in 1994, recent opinion polls predict that it will bleed support to opposition coalitions that have gained ground as the ANC has been dogged by political scandal and a flagging economy.
We are determined that those found guilty of corruption or involvement in state capture will not be allowed to occupy positions of responsibility, either in the ANC, in parliament or in government.
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who took over from scandal-plagued Jacob Zuma as ANC leader in December 2017, told about 70,000 supporters packed into Johannesburg’s Ellis Park Stadium on Sunday that the party would punish members guilty of stealing public money.
A judicial corruption inquiry that began in 2018 has heard chilling evidence of how top officials took bribes from local and multinational companies in exchange for lucrative contracts from state firms.
“We are determined that those found guilty of corruption or involvement in state capture will not be allowed to occupy positions of responsibility, either in the ANC, in parliament or in government,” Ramaphosa said at Sunday’s rally.
“The era of impunity is over. We are now entering the era of accountability.”
The torrent of allegations has hit ANC support, especially in urban areas.
The EFF, formed by former ANC youth leader Julius Malema in 2013, has built its agenda on highlighting state graft and championing radical economic reforms the ANC has avoided, such as mine nationalisation and land expropriation without compensation.
“The reign of thieves must fall, the reign of Ramaphosa must fall,” Malema chanted at a rally of about 40,000 supporters in Johannesburg township Soweto. “The EFF doesn’t have tolerance for corruption.”
Three opinion polls in recent weeks show the ANC’s support ranging between 51 and 61 percent, compared with the 62 percent it won in 2014.
Kingmaker
The EFF won 10 percent of the vote in 2014 national elections. In local elections in 2016 it captured 12 percent, allowing it to play kingmaker in urban regions where neither of the top two parties managed to get past 50 percent.
Analysts said it was telling that the ANC, as well as the two largest opposition parties – the Democratic Alliance (DA) and EFF – held their final campaign rallies in Gauteng.
Despite being the province with the smallest land area, Gauteng generates more than a third of South Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP) and is the most populous province with a population of 14.3 million.
In 2016 local polls the ANC lost control of the three largest metropolitan municipalities – economic hub Johannesburg, administrative capital Pretoria, both in Gauteng, and Nelson Mandela Bay in the eastern province.
Ramaphosa said the ANC would revive economic growth and ease unemployment, which sits at more than 27 percent, by hitting an investment target of 1.4 trillion rand ($100 billion) and limiting policy uncertainty.
“It has never been done before in South Africa and only the ANC will be able to mobilise these kind of resources,” Ramaphosa said.
South Africa’s economic growth has slowed sharply in recent years, averaging about 2 percent in the past decade, while medium-term GDP is seen around 1 percent, well below the 4-5 percent needed to dent rising poverty and joblessness.
Malema said the EFF would grow the economy in favour of black Africans and the youth by doubling child grants, offering free university education and nationalising key industries.
“Political freedom without economic freedom is meaningless,” Malema said, referring to wealth and income inequality that has remained racially skewed and the slow progress of the ANC’s policies of affirmative action and macroeconomic orthodoxy.
“We are not fighting white people. We are fighting to eat from the same dinner table,” Malema said.
The human rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) denounced in a report published on Monday “a regular use of torture and illegal detention” by the Cameroonian authorities against English-speaking separatists.
HRW claims to have “documented 26 cases of illegal detention and enforced disappearance at the detention centre of the Secretariat of State for Defence between January 2018 and January 2019, including 14 cases of torture”.
The 26 cases concern English-speaking separatists or persons suspected of being so, HRW added.
Gendarmes and other security forces at the State Secretariat of Defense (SED) used severe beatings and near-drownings to obtain confessions.
Among them, “ten were leaders of the self-proclaimed Ambazonia interim government,” the NGO detailed.
The English-speaking separatists of Cameroon, a country with a French-speaking majority, are campaigning for the creation of an independent state in the North-West and South-West regions on behalf of Ambazonia.
At the end of 2017, after a year of protest, separatists took up arms against Yaoundé. Since then, these regions have been the scene of an armed conflict that has continued to grow.
“Gendarmes and other security forces at the State Secretariat of Defense (SED) used severe beatings and near-drownings to obtain confessions,” the NGO said in its publication. In this report, HRW also cites cases of torture inflicted by separatists on civilians.
On Wednesday, the Ministry of Defense denounced on Facebook the “guilty silence and complicity of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the international media” in the face of abuses committed by separatists against civilians.
In mid-April, a HRW researcher working on the conflict in the English-speaking area was denied entry to Cameroon at Douala airport. In twenty months, the conflict in the English-speaking area has killed 1,850 people, according to the International Crisis Group, a centre for geopolitical analysis. It has already forced more than 530,000 people to flee their homes, according to the UN.
At the initiative of the United States, the UN Security Council will hold its first meeting on the crisis in English-speaking Cameroon on May 13, which will focus on the humanitarian situation.
“The UN Security Council should send a clear message that ending torture in detention is crucial to responding to the crisis in English-speaking regions,” HRW commented in its report on Monday.
On Thursday, Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, arrived in Cameroon for a four-day visit, where she met with President Paul Biya on Friday.
Forty-one people died after a Russian plane made an emergency landing and burst into flames just after takeoff from Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport.
Dramatic video shows passengers using emergency exit slides to escape the burning Aeroflot aircraft.
Survivors suggest the plane was struck by lightning, but Russia’s national carrier said only that it returned to the airport for technical reasons.
Two children are among the dead. The jet had 73 passengers and five crew.
Initial reports suggested the plane had landed on fire, but sources quoted by Russian news agency Interfax said the jet caught fire after a very bumpy landing.
The aircraft landed with full fuel tanks because the crew lost contact with air traffic controllers and decided it was too dangerous to dump fuel over Moscow, Interfax added.
“There are 37 survivors – 33 passengers and four members of the crew,” said Yelena Markovskaya, an official involved in the investigation of the crash.
A flight attendant was also reportedly killed in the incident. Five people are in hospital. One witness said it was a “miracle” anyone escaped.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has ordered a special committee to investigate the disaster.
What happened to the plane?
The aircraft, a Sukhoi Superjet-100, left the airport at 18:02 local time (15:02 GMT), bound for Murmansk.
Its crew sent a distress signal when “malfunctions” occurred in bad weather shortly after take-off.
After making an emergency landing at the airport, the plane’s engines caught fire on the runway, Aeroflot said, adding that the crew “did everything to save the passengers”.
One passenger who survived the crash, Petr Egorov, was quoted by the Komsomolskaya Pravda daily newspaper as saying that the flight “had just taken off and the aircraft was hit by lightning”, adding: “The landing was rough – I almost passed out from fear.”
Stock markets in China and Europe have been hit after US President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on China, putting a trade deal in doubt.
He said on Twitter the US would more than double tariffs on $200bn (£152bn) of Chinese goods on Friday and would introduce fresh tariffs.
Recent comments had suggested both sides were nearing a trade deal.
A Chinese delegation is preparing to travel to Washington for negotiations aimed at ending the trade war.
It is not clear whether Beijing’s top trade negotiator Vice-Premier Liu He will be part of those negotiations that are due to resume on Wednesday.
“We are currently working on understanding the situation,” foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular news briefing.
Earlier, US media reported that Beijing was considering cancelling the talks. Reports said the Chinese were due to send a 100-person delegation to the negotiations.
In China, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index closed 2.9% lower, while the Shanghai Composite tumbled 5.6%.
European stock markets fell in early trading, with the main Paris and Frankfurt indexes down more than 2% by mid-morning. Particularly hard hit were the makers of cars, car parts and steel.
US stock futures pointed to a lower open on Wall Street. Markets in London are closed for a bank holiday.
Michael Hirson, Asia director at Eurasia Group, said: “His [Mr Trump’s] move injects major uncertainty into negotiations, which now face a rising risk of an extended impasse – perhaps even through the US presidential election.”
What did Mr Trump say?
The US president tweeted that tariffs of 10% on certain goods would rise to 25% on Friday, and $325bn of untaxed goods could face 25% duties “shortly”.
“The Trade Deal with China continues, but too slowly, as they attempt to renegotiate. No!” he tweeted.
After imposing duties on billions of dollars worth of one another’s goods last year, the US and China have been negotiating and in recent weeks, appeared to be close to striking a trade deal.
Last week US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin described talks held in Beijing as “productive”.
Presentational white space White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told Fox News that the president’s tweet was a warning.
“The president is, I think, issuing a warning here, that, you know, we bent over backwards earlier, we suspended the 25% tariff to 10 and then we’ve left it there.
“That may not be forever if the talks don’t work out,” he said.
Is the deal over?
So far, the US has imposed tariffs on $250bn of Chinese goods, having accused the country of unfair trade practices.
Beijing hit back with duties on $110bn of US goods, blaming the US for starting “the largest trade war in economic history”.
Workers wait to unload shipping containers on a port in Qingdao in ChinaGetty Images The US is the biggest export market for Chinese goods According to reports, in recent days US officials have become frustrated by China seeking to row back on earlier commitments made over a deal.
Sticking points have included how to enforce a deal, whether and how fast to roll back tariffs already imposed and issues around intellectual property protection.
Tom Orlik, chief economist at Bloomberg Economics, said: “It’s possible talks are breaking down, with China offering insufficient concessions, and an increase in tariffs a genuine prospect.
“More likely, in our view, is that this renewed threat is an attempt to extract a few more minor concessions in the final days of talks.”
What will the tariff rise affect?
Mr Trump’s latest move will raise duties on more than 5,000 products made by Chinese producers, ranging from chemicals to textiles and consumer goods.
The US president originally imposed a 10% tariff on these goods in September that was due to rise in January, but postponed this as negotiations advanced.
However, both US and international firms have said they are being harmed by the trade war.
Fears about a further escalation caused a slump in world stock markets towards the end of last year.
The IMF has warned a full-blown trade war would weaken the global economy.
Finance minister Mthuli Ncube seems to be coming to terms with the realities of the institution he has accepted to serve.
I am sure by now he has learnt that Zimbabwe’s lack of economic growth is not because there is a shortage of good ideas and resources. There is a depraved attitude that permeates from the political leadership that continues to undermine progress.
The level of selfishness and greed stinks. His opinion editorial in The Herald of May 3 speaks volumes of some of his frustrations, though he chose to be frugal in pin-pointing the real stumbling blocks to achieving his reforms.
His attempt to paint a positive economic picture based on the implementation of the Transitional Stabilisation Programme is undermined by his attribution of the slow progress or lack, therefore, to natural disasters, external economic factors and what he terms “restricted access to international financial markets”, which in my view means sanctions. These factors are beyond his government’s control and yet he calls for patience and discipline among suffering and frustrated Zimbabwe. What happened to working with what you have in order to achieve what you want?
I guess Ncube is aware that the real impediments to economic growth are some of his counterparts who reportedly demand huge kickbacks from potential investors. And the economy cannot grow if those responsible for facilitating investment are throwing spanners in the works. He also knows that it is the same people who have the mastered the art of political indiscipline that have created uncertainty in the country to the extent that even local investors do not have confidence to keep their money in the country.
Corruption, too, continues to bleed the country of its resources, diminishing chances of economic revival. This is where discipline is required than asking people, who have endured two decades of hunger and suffering, to continue to be patient and disciplined. No matter how excellent one is in economics, you cannot rule out the basic fact that it is economic and political confidence plus opportunities that attract investment. And investment breeds industrialisation, which is the engine of economic growth.
Without these, any talk of creating employment opportunities and economic growth is a white lie. Some investors consider Zimbabwe a high risk investment climate because the political and economic environment does not inspire confidence, which is a threat to investment and their capital. Investors prefer to put their money where they are guaranteed of present and long term stability, which is the precursor for returns.
We can faff about patience and discipline among the suffering Zimbabweans, when the real problem is our politicians and the environment they have created, particularly those in power today. Revelations from some of the parliamentary portfolio committees’ investigations on the mismanagement of parastatals point to the involvement of senior politicians behind the looting.
This is evident from the arrogance with which some of the senior management of those parastatals have approached these committees. Some of them have admitted before the parliamentary portfolio committees that they cannot respond to certain questions because that would implicate senior people. And that is supposed to be right.
It is that growing impunity by those in public service, whose duty is to protect and manage national resources with modesty, accountability and transparency, that has eroded confidence.
There is a serious lack of honesty on matters related to corruption. In public arenas, politicians sound determined to weed out corruption and yet their threats amount to nothing.
Speaking in his special Independence Day interview with the State broadcaster, President Emmerson Mnangagwa admitted that, he “now realise(s) that corruption is deep-rooted. I thought that by pronouncing that let’s fight corruption those who are corrupt will fear and stop; it’s not like that. It’s so rooted that you have to fight it from A to Z. (In) most systems, structures and institutions, there is an element of corruption.”
He added that there is corruption within the police force and the prosecuting authority. It is good that the President is aware, but sad that even with that level of detail at his disposal, no one in these institutions has been arrested. In addition, he did not assure the nation that he will deal with these issues decisively.
Maybe corruption is a hot potato. If not, why is it that we do not see the authorities acting when serious cases of corruption are raised? Most of the high-profile corruption cases have been acquitted and the reason for this is that, as some would argue, convictions would implicate the powerful behind the accused. Similarly, cases raised by the various parliamentary portfolio committees have not been pursued further for unknown reasons.
Political activists are, meanwhile, traced and apprehended easily and sent to jail for expressing an opposing view, while those who sabotage the economy and cause poverty are left to walk freely.
These situations are enough evidence to suggest that the threats we hear from those who lead us are nothing, but political grandstanding, despite that corruption continues to undermine their own efforts to rebuild the economy and country.
Once there is political will to weed out corruption by the political leadership, the fight against corruption will be won, Ncube’s ideas will see the light of the day and investment will grow — opening up employment opportunities. That day will mark the birth of a new Zimbabwe ready to unleash its potential giving hope to its millions of disparate citizens.
Last week, we looked at some background history on the Maintenance of Order and Peace Bill (MOPA) as well as similarities between the Bill and its predecessor, the Public Order and Security Authority (POSA). This week, we explore the defects of the Bill more substantively and why it should not be passed without major reforms.
We already established that the Bill is a replica of POSA and thus major criticisms of POSA apply unreservedly to the draft Bill. Let’s turn to consider the offences created in MOPA.
There are eight cardinal sins in terms of MOPA which will attract criminal liability. These are:
Violating the prohibition on possessing certain weapons leading to six months imprisonment, a fine or both per Clause 4 (4);
Failing to give notice of a protest, public gathering or public meeting which leads to a one-year sentence, a fine or both per Clause 7(5);
Violating a prohibition notice issued against a public demonstration, gathering or meeting or not heeding to any conditions that may have been given by the police for the gathering/demonstration which leads to a one-year sentence, a fine or both per Clause 8(11);
Failing to produce an ID after seven days results in a fine per Clause 14(5);
Entering or leaving cordoned areas without written permits issued by the police leads to a six-month sentence, a fine or both per Clause 15(2);
Public disorder or violence per Clause 15(3)(b);
Failure or refusal to stop when required by the police or taking measures to prevent being stopped or searched leading to a 12-month sentence, a fine or both per Clause 16 (3);
Hindering or obstruction of a police officer exercising powers of search and seizure of aircraft and vessels leads to a 12-month sentence, a fine or both per Clause 17(6). It is already quite obvious which crimes are problematic and counter democracy, but let’s discuss how these crimes and their corresponding provisions violate the Constitution.
Limitations on the right to protest and political participation MOPA presents major hurdles to two twinned constitutional rights: The right to protest in s59 and the right to political participation in s67 of the Constitution. The right to protest in s59 states:
“Every person has the right to demonstrate and to present petitions, but these rights must be exercised peacefully.”
Our Constitutional Court has gone to great lengths to express how fundamental and important the right is. In Democratic Assembly for Restoration & Others v Saunyama N O & Others, a unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Court penned by Justice Rita Makarau, the court held that protests serve as an expression and reminder of outrage, condemnation or support of policies or actions.
In addition, she noted that “demonstrations have become an acceptable platform of public engagement and a medium of communication on issues of a public nature in open societies based on justice and freedom”. Protests are, therefore, legitimate and necessary in a democracy, provided they are peaceful.
As a result of the supremacy of our Constitution, laws such as MOPA need to be consistent with the Constitution without derogating from the rights and protections enshrined in it.
How does MOPA limit the right to petition and protest, you may ask? Well, this is done chiefly through the requirements of notices prior to processions, public demonstrations or public meetings in Clause 8 and the criminalisation of failing to give such notice. People are required to notify and obtain approval from the police of such protests beforehand.
It must be noted that the Constitution does not place similar requirements prior to the exercise of the right to protest nor does it grant the police power to approve or prohibit protests. To the extent that the proposed legislation curtails the right by placing these notification obstacles, MOPA is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, MOPA like POSA, impliedly prohibits any spur of the moment protests, public meetings or public gatherings. You will recall that the Constitutional Court already indicated that protests are a medium of communication, but are also an expression of outrage or support.
There are protests that will occasionally sprout up from the immediate circumstances that move the country to a common cause for protests or gatherings, but these are not legally permissible with the provisions relating to notification.
In fact, there is a penalty for a protest, public gathering or demonstration that is not sanctioned by the police. MOPA would make the kind of protests that broke out during the 2017 coup, unlawful.
MOPA also makes the gathering of people outside courts such as the ones we witnessed during cleric Evan Mawarire’s case, unlawful.
Some analysts have been quick to defend MOPA’s notification clauses by citing the South African Gatherings Act which contains similar provisions, but unfortunately, this comparison is not useful.
Firstly, that Act is an Apartheid-era Act which has been fallen out of use in that it is hardly enforced, but more importantly, the Constitutional Court of South Africa declared that the provisions were unconstitutional in the case of Mlungwana and Others v S and Another.
Internationally, the same concept of notification for demonstrations has been seen as a limitation to the enjoyment of the right to protest. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s decision in Kivenmaa v Finland Communication expressly found that criminalising non-notification limits the right in Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 21 states: “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognised. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the
law and which are necessary in a democratic society …” Limitations on the right of movement, privacy and dignity
Clause 13 gives the police the power to establish cordons around any area if they consider it necessary to either contain public disorder in the area or “protect the area from public disorder”. The language here will no doubt remind many of the emergency regulations under the Rhodesian government and that points to the problem here.
These wide powers are essentially emergency powers which Zimbabwe will be subject to indefinitely if MOPA is enacted as law. The unchecked power of the police to determine when cordons will be established is extremely problematic and invites an obvious potential for abuse.
Clause 13 further gives police officers the powers to conduct searches within the cordoned areas without warrants to look for persons who are suspected of having instigated the public disorder or violence that led to the establishment of the cordon or to find evidence for such crimes.
It’s important to bring in s57 of the Constitution at this stage. Section 57 guarantees every person the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their home, premises or property entered without their permission; their person, home, premises or property searched, and their possessions seized.
Warrants generally provide the necessary justification to override this since a magistrate or judge has oversight over the process.
In the absence of judicial oversight, this right will certainly be infringed by Clause 13’s wide formulation. Nothing in the clause prevents police from having perpetual cordons and searches without warrants since all that is required is a subjective belief that establishing a cordon is “necessary”. More safeguards are required to bring this in line with the Constitution and to prevent unjustifiable intrusions into the privacy of Zimbabweans.
Regrettably, MOPA fails to take this right into account and unduly fetters not just the right to privacy but also restricts the right to dignity in s51 of the Constitution that accompanies the right to privacy.
If dignity is the sense of worth and value, then unjustified intrusions and forced searches without warrants will detract from that feeling of worth. Something about arbitrary searches and seizures strikes at the core of our dignity and leaves one feeling violated. It’s therefore important that this is factored in.
Something more worrying about Clause 13 is that the section criminalises movement into or from a cordoned area without written permission. If one knowingly leaves or enters a cordoned area, then in terms of Clause 13(2), an offence has been committed which could result in a fine or six-month imprisonment or both.
In an open democracy, such archaic restrictions and corresponding penalties must be resisted. Section 66 of the Constitution grants everyone in the right to move freely within Zimbabwe and leave Zimbabwe. The broad powers given to police to establish cordons and arrest persons who leave cordoned areas without written permission, inevitably interferes with this right.
Clause 16 which authorises police to stop and search any person, vehicle or vessel entering of leaving Zimbabwe, without a warrant is also problematic in its interference of rights of privacy. It also lacks sufficient controls to prevent abuse by the police.
In the last instalment of this series, I will look at how the Bill can be bettered and also give a run down of other problematic provisions that we have not covered as yet.
THE trial of Mkoba legislator Amos Chibaya (MDC Alliance), facing allegations of plotting to subvert a constitutionally-elected government, was on Thursday further postponed to May 31.
Chibaya’s charges emanate from an interview he allegedly had with a private daily newspaper in January this year where he was quoted as having said: “… 2019 is the year that we are going to send [President Emmerson] Mnangagwa packing … We are not going to go on the streets to toyi-toyi, but go straight to State House, because that is where there is the person who stole the elections.”
The State’s case is that between December 16 and January 2, Chibaya had a phone discussions with Learnmore Magorimbo, the national chairperson for Zimbabwe National Youth Alliance, a pressure group mobilising for a nationwide demonstration.
The alleged communication, the court heard, was done using certain cellphone numbers.
The State further alleges that on January 2, Chibaya communicated with all MDC Alliance supporters mobilising them to destabilise the government.
The court heard that as a result of his message, violent demonstrations occurred in Mkoba, Mtapa and Ascot high-density suburbs in Gweru, where Chibaya was allegedly among the protesters.
It is alleged that property were destroyed by protesters, who took heed of Chibaya’s order to overthrow the government through unconstitutional means. Chibaya, who is out of custody on a $1 000 bail, however, denies the charge.
SIMBISA Brands’ US dollar pricing model is now servicing its monthly US$1 million demand for raw materials bill which has upped the company’s initial capital expenditure to $15 million on 20 more outlets, NewsDay has learnt.
In February, Simbisa announced it would invest about $10 million setting up 21 new outlets, with the company opening a Nando’s branch last Friday in Harare central business district at a cost of US$675 000.
Helping the company increase its capital investment is the company’s adoption of a US dollar pricing model in December 2018 which covers its monthly raw materials demand and is helping with the company’s expansion plans.
“What we have looked at is, because of the demand for our brands throughout the country, we have upped that investment from $10 million. We are still working out the finer details, but it may come closer to about $15 million or $17 million for 20 more outlets by the end of this financial year (ending June 30, 2019),” Simbisa Brands managing director Warren Meares told NewsDay Business.
“Basically, the United States dollar pricing has helped in that it has made available the US dollars required to help us with our expansion and to import all the raw materials required to run our operations. In our operations we require at least US$1 million a month and I would say for our raw materials it (US dollar pricing) is largely covering that.”
The US pricing model includes offering customers discounts nearly at cost for those buying with the United States dollar.
Other fastfood chains implementing such a model include KFC Zimbabwe and Slice Distributors (Private) Limited.
Simbisa operates Chicken Inn, Pizza Inn, Baker’s Inn, Creamy Inn, Fish Inn, Rocomamas, Steers, Nando’s and Galito’s outlets.
Meares said on top of increasing their total outlets across all the brands they also have plans to introduce some new ones.
“We also have some new brands that we are going to be bringing in from South Africa,” Meares said. To date, Simbisa Brands has 209 outlets across the country.
In its financials for the half year ended December 31, 2018, the fastfood chain saw a 44% growth in revenue to US$143,24 million from the previous year’s comparative of US$99,2 million.
This was from a 6% increase in the total number of customers served to 30 million, equivalent to at least every citizen buying twice from Simbisa Brands outlets in the period.
In terms of profit after tax, this more than doubled to US$16,37 million for the period under review from a comparative of US$7,99 million in the previous period.
Heading into the second half of the year, the company had an operating profit margin of 19% leaving it in a very profitable position.
Total assets grew 23,33% to US$104,64 million from the previous period’s comparative US$84,84 million.
