Tanzania Mining Act of 2010 (Vain Politics)

[Kobello]

Ndio maana nimesema hapo awali kwamba wa TZ wanapenda sana hoja za siasa at the expense of economics. The government did not negotiate the new terms, the government dictated new terms.

Mmoja kati ya wawekezaji wa TanzaniteOne ni kampuni inaitwa Blackrock, hii ni moja ya makampuni makubwa duniani na waliowekeza Blackrock sasa hivi wanafahamu kwamba their investments are vulnerable to lose half the value kwa sababu Tanzania inataka kutaifisha hisa zao. Kumbuka kwamba wawekezaji do exchange notes, pia kumbuka kwamba makampuni yanayo manage investments huwa yana rate risk na uamuzi huu unaifanya Tanzania iwe destination ya high risk. What is the cost, maana yake ni kwamba investors will find it not appropriate kuja kuwekeza katika miradi ya muda mrefu kwa kuwa serikali haitabiriki, they will be more interested in short time high return opportunities.

Ni muhimu ukaelewa global investments and how countries are rated from risk perspective kabla ya kutoa kauli za 'kama hawataki waondoke'. Hii sheria inawafurahisha wapenda siasa.

Shareholder and entrepreneur are not synonimous. Anaye incorporate factors of production ni entrepreneur sio shareholder. Please fanya utafiti. MImi nimesema serikali ni 'silent shareholder' sikusema serikali ni 'silent entrepreneur'.

you are distorting your own facts.

Who cares if it takes us 100 years to get the knowledge, and the capital to extract our own minerals (gemstones, lol)??
Who cares if Blackrock is a humomgous conglomerate that can affect investment in Tanzania?? I don't.

A shareholders Job is not just to inject capital and wait for the benefits ... he/she has to participate in the decision making process ... hence enterpreneurship.

umeanza kuona unajua zaidi ... ver wrong precedent!!

Scarcity will create itself ...remember that.

 

[Emmanuel Tayari]

Ndg Zitto, kwanza nakushukuru sana kwa moyo wako wa kujitokeza na kuchangia hii mada muhimu sana pamoja na ku share mifano kadhaa katika kujenga hoja yako.

I am assuming that huna tatizo kuona wawekezaji wanakuja nchini na wanapata faida ila jambo linalokusumbua ni kwamba mfumo tulionayo si wa win-win.

Katika makala yangu niliweka jambo moja wazi and in bold, nilisema hakuna faida yoyote ya kiuchumi ambayo haiwezi kupatikana katika gemstone mining industry ambayo ili ipatikane ni lazima serikali imiliki hisa, nilisema lengo lolote lenye manufaa linaweza kupatikana kupitia katika mfumo wa kodi ama regulation.

Kutokana na mfano huo uliotoa kwanza niseme wazi kwanza inasikitisha sana.

Utakumbuka kwamba Barrick walikuwa katika mazungumzo na China National Gold Group, mazungumzo yaliyokuwa yana lengo la kuwawezesha Barrick kuuza 74% stake kwa Wachina na mazungumzo yale yalikwama na moja ya sababu ni kwamba Serikali ilipitisha Capital Gains tax ili na wananchi wapate mapato kupitia mfumo wa kodi.

Swali langu kwako ni je unakubaliana na mimi kwamba katika yale mauzo ya $348m Taifa lingeweza kupata kile amabacho tunaona tunastahili kupitia mfumo wa kodi? Kama gharama za Sutton Resources zinajulikana, bei waliouzia inajulikana, faida waliopata inajulikana kwa nini mfumo wa kodi usiboreshwe na uwe jibu la kutuwezesha kupata cha kwetu na badala ya hizi 'nyimbo' za government ownership?
Kama tungekuwa tunamiliki nusu ya hisa za Sutton maana yake ni kwamba tungekuwa entitled to nusu ya hiyo gain, halikadhalika mfumo wetu wa kodi unaweza kuboreshwa na sheria ikasema in such situations we will be entitled to nusu ya hayo mapato. End of the day what goes to the treasury coffers ni kilekile, so what is the justification of all this hype on free government ownership?

Kwa sasa tuweke pembeni hoja ya kuwataka wageni wauze hisa DSE, faida ya hilo zinaeleweka.

Mkuu H.S,

Hauwezi kutegemea mfumo wa kodi ama regulation kwa Taifa kunufaika na extractive industry. Ulimwengu tunaoishi ambapo makumpuni yote yaki mataifa yanakuwa involved na tax transfer pricing hutapata kitu mzee.

Special Purpose Vehicle(SPV) ya hizi project zetu kubwa ziko registered in Safe heaven. Hatuna Enforcement power nor Manpower ya kushindana na haya makampuni ili tupate fair share. Therefore Botswana Model is the way for Tanzania.

 

[Emmanuel Tayari]

Ndg Kichuguu,

Mr Zitto has already affirmed what I am saying and he even clarified that the law is retrospective, please see Mr. Zitto's quote below.

'The Law is very clear that only Tanzanians can own licences to mine gemstones. Foreigners will only be allowed if 50% of the shares are held by Tanzanians. I insist 'licences issued to Tanzanians only'.

I have also quoted the statements of the Deputy Minister, amesema bila ya kuchanganya maneno kamba TanzaniteOne lazima waachie nusu ya hisa as a condition for license renewal. Kauli hii ya Waziri went viral katika several investment/finance outlets, kwa kifupi TZ imejishushia rating yake kwa kutaka kukamata hisa za wawekezaji bure.

Please read this link
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/TanzaniteOne+rejects+calls+to+give+50pc+stake+to+govt+firm/-/2558/1532564/-/qdn3qd/-/index.html

If you were an investment consultant and a client is telling you he does not want to invest in Tanzania because the Government cannot be trusted and that they keep making drastic changes detrimental to investor value utamjibu nini your client who is also welcomed to invest in Singapore, United Arab Emirates and Namibia ?

Mheshimiwa Zitto anaongelea "gemstone" Kwahiyo huyo Investor unayemzungumzia hawezi kupata gemstone kama Tanzanite in Singapore, UA.E au Namibia.Therefore the uniqueness of such gemstone inatupa sisi uwezo wa ku dedicate the terms.

Kumbuka Dhahabu sio Gemstone kwahiyo hii sheria haigusi Uchimbaji wa Dhahabu. This part of law ina manufaa kuliko hasara.

 

[WOWOWO]

The article look like a cry of some one who have been pilfering more from gemstone owners who are now reclaiming their belonging. To me, this is what we can call vain business and not vain politics as confronted by the writer.

The point to note here is who own gemstones? Who is in demand? Who is supposed to benefit more and lastly who is obligated to set the regulatory frameworks in creating win to win situation? It is very peculiar the writer has ignored some vivid examples of developing states that have applied the same model of 50/50 venturing on the mining sector and became successful. Botswana is one. Referring Zimbambwe on this case without regarding political and sanctional circumstances surrounding the country is purely misleading.

Whether Zimbambwe have succeed through its policy of indigenization of the economy or not it doesn't matter as far as we can learn on their failures and pick some successful approaches from countries like Botswana and even China where venturing have become more productive to the economies.

I totally disagree with hands off approach by the governments when managing the economies. The good approach is where the government either through joint ventures or holding 100% of shares or empowering its nationals will continue putt eyes on different key economic sectors. Even rich countries like China, USA are now opting some of these approaches. You can not let everything be run by foreigners without any close look, interventions and disclosures.

Surely, the writer have also invested more on falsification of some of the key incidents in order to justify his/her demands. Example policies like Nationalization implemented by Tanzania back in I960's especially during the Arusha declaration can not in any way compare with the 2010 Mining act and even the grounded reasons for failure of the policy are not factual rather constructed on biases and subjectivity.

Nationalization is nationalization can not be venturing. These are two different terms.Unfortunately the writer is trying to portray as the same thing. Arusha declaration was all about nationalization but the 2010 Mining Act insist on Joint Ventures. What is the problem with this? Where the owner of gemstones demand for equity? Shocking.

Through joint ventures with indigenous we at least assure half of the revenues generated from the mining sector to remain within the country and stimulate other sectors. But allowing foreign companies to own everything while leaving loyalties of 4% only and minor revenues can not work any more. We need half of the revenues to be re-invested domestically.

It is high time now for Western powers and their trumpeters to adhere and respect natural resources ownership rights. Zimbabwe didn't fail because of empowering its nationals rather due to western missions and their sabotages. Issues like covertness in contracts when comes to international deals not only violate citizenry ownership rights but also violate constitutions of some countries that are rich in Natural resources.

 

[Zitto]

Ndg Zitto, kwanza nakushukuru sana kwa moyo wako wa kujitokeza na kuchangia hii mada muhimu sana pamoja na ku share mifano kadhaa katika kujenga hoja yako.

Utakumbuka kwamba Barrick walikuwa katika mazungumzo na China National Gold Group, mazungumzo yaliyokuwa yana lengo la kuwawezesha Barrick kuuza 74% stake kwa Wachina na mazungumzo yale yalikwama na moja ya sababu ni kwamba Serikali ilipitisha Capital Gains tax ili na wananchi wapate mapato kupitia mfumo wa kodi.

hivi enh?

 

[Zitto]

Kama ulikuwa unafuatilia hali ya uwekezaji nchini hasa katika sector ya madini utakuwa umeshasoma ile statement ya Ambassador Mpungwe kwamba haiwezekani kuchukua hisa za kampuni 'by a simple announcement'.

Hata kama mwisho Serikali na TanzaniteOne watakubaliana Serikali ipate 20% ya hisa bure na nyingine 30% ziuzwe DSE. It will be a factual that the Government nationalized 20% of TanzaniteOne shares.

katika ulimwengu wa uwekezaji ni bora kusema corporate kodi ya gemstone mining imepanda from 30% to 50% kuliko kusema 20% ya hisa zimekuwa nationalized kwa sababu the former maana yake future return on investment will shrink but the later means you are losing 20% of your investment on the day the Govt grabs equity. Neno 'nationalization' is one of the worst nightmares any investor wants to hear.

Tanzania ingeweza kuongeza mapato bila ya kujichafulia jina as taifa linalokusudua kutaifisha hisa za wawekezaji. Neno hili (nationalization) lina gharama kubwa sana, watu wengi hawafahamu.

Nadhani una woga usio na maana. Sheria ipo wazi kabisa imesema hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania. Sio kwa Serikali bali kwa Watanzania. Hao watanzania wanaweza kuwa serikali, ndio maana wengine tukashauri Botswana Model. Pia TanzaniteOne wanaweza kuweka sokoni hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania.

Hakuna nationalisation hapa. Kwanza ujue nationalisation imepigwa marufuku na Katiba ya sasa.

section 24(2)...... it shall be unlawful for any person to be deprived of his property for the purposes of nationalisation.......... inaendelea hiyo na mambo ya compansation.

Kwa hiyo investor anayeogopa nationalisation anajiogopesha tu maana Katiba imekataza.

 

[H.S]

Nadhani una woga usio na maana. Sheria ipo wazi kabisa imesema hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania. Sio kwa Serikali bali kwa Watanzania. Hao watanzania wanaweza kuwa serikali, ndio maana wengine tukashauri Botswana Model. Pia TanzaniteOne wanaweza kuweka sokoni hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania.

Hakuna nationalisation hapa. Kwanza ujue nationalisation imepigwa marufuku na Katiba ya sasa.

section 24(2)...... it shall be unlawful for any person to be deprived of his property for the purposes of nationalisation.......... inaendelea hiyo na mambo ya compansation.

Kwa hiyo investor anayeogopa nationalisation anajiogopesha tu maana Katiba imekataza.

Isn't this Nationalization? If this is not nationalization why did Ambassador Mpungwe say you cannot do that by 'a simple announcement'?

Deputy Minister for Energy and Minerals Stephen Masele told The EastAfrican that the firm must relinquish the stake to Stamico as a precondition for renewing its operating licence.

"The company wants the state to buy the shares, but our position is that the firm ought to offload the stocks to Stamico free of charge or else lose the licence," said Mr Masele.

Source:
TanzaniteOne rejects calls to give 50pc stake to govt firm - News - www.theeastafrican.co.ke

 

[Emmanuel Tayari]

Isn't this Nationalization? If this is not nationalization why did Ambassador Mpungwe say you cannot do that by 'a simple announcement'?

Deputy Minister for Energy and Minerals Stephen Masele told The EastAfrican that the firm must relinquish the stake to Stamico as a precondition for renewing its operating licence.

“The company wants the state to buy the shares, but our position is that the firm ought to offload the stocks to Stamico free of charge or else lose the licence,” said Mr Masele.

Source:
TanzaniteOne rejects calls to give 50pc stake to govt firm - News - www.theeastafrican.co.ke

The whole purpose of having mining licenses limited in time, is to give the GOT the opportunity to evaluate if the licence issued is beneficial to the country. In this case , GoT may simply refuse to renew the licence and If Ambassador Mpungwe is standing for shareholders’ interests, I would assume, having a 50% stake is more value to his shareholders than losing the license whole together.

 

[John Mashaka]

Nadhani una woga usio na maana. Sheria ipo wazi kabisa imesema hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania. Sio kwa Serikali bali kwa Watanzania. Hao watanzania wanaweza kuwa serikali, ndio maana wengine tukashauri Botswana Model. Pia TanzaniteOne wanaweza kuweka sokoni hisa asilimia 50 kwa Watanzania.

Hakuna nationalisation hapa. Kwanza ujue nationalisation imepigwa marufuku na Katiba ya sasa.

section 24(2)...... it shall be unlawful for any person to be deprived of his property for the purposes of nationalisation.......... inaendelea hiyo na mambo ya compansation.

Kwa hiyo investor anayeogopa nationalisation anajiogopesha tu maana Katiba imekataza.

I love Tanzania and would never suggest anything that would turn the country into an investors "milk cow" however, I would not support any legislation or politician taking advantage of an investor that comes in legitimately to create jobs, pay taxes and support our communities.

I simply can't get it. IPO Issuance is a long and complicated process, even though in Tanzania it is sounding easy. What is happening today in Tanzania will be realized in a few years to come. The 2010 mining ACT is some sort of prohibitory piece of legislation deterring easy entry into the mining sector, which is of course difficult by default. None the less, an investor does not come in to work for the government; they come with profitability in mind; both for themselves, and for the host country

Should that be the case, before an investor comes in,

1. It should be made clear to them from the beginning that, 50% of their profits will go to the public be it dividends or taxation
2. The government should help them raise the required capital (50%) to have equitable ownership. In which the government can either sell to the public its equity or simply retain them

Otherwise it would not make sense to force them into ceding of fifty-percent of their company ownership. You must also bear in mind the formalities and stringent requirements an invertors goes through to secure a foreign loan. Americans or Japanese that I have worked with for instance, are very careful in managing their foreign investments. They are also very keen in servicing their loans. They don't want to run into catastrophe. And in our case, unnecessary traps are laid before them by our clueless politicians

Zitto There are lots of deficiencies in this ACT that can be corrected. Due to the importance of the 2010 Mining ACT in relation to our country's progress, it is imperative you respond to Mr. H.S request for a discussion. I am sure he pointed out at you specifically because you have championed various bills in the mining sector. Thus deemed you an expert, especially in the investment field. We can work with you in delivering the message to the government that some of the policies may need overhaul. Otherwise mining in Tanzania will be left for Tanzanians like some puts it.

 

[Kichuguu]

Naona kuwa kuna wanaopiga vita sheria hii siyo kwa sababu za kiuchumi kama wanavyotaka kutufahamaisha bali ni kwa sababu ya kutokuijua sheria yenyewe inasemaje. Ingawa sheria hiyo ina mapungufu kadhaa, mapungufu hayo hayafanyi sheria nzima iwe useless ya kufukuza wawekezaji waliokuwa wakitusaidia kiuchumi na sasa wanaondoka kwa sababu ya sheria hiyo mbaya, na hivyo kuathiri uchumi wetu. Utashangaa mtu mwenye akili zake timamu anapiga kelele kuwa serikali inataka kutaifisha 50% ya miradi ya madini wakati hamna kipengele chochote kwenye sheria kinachosema hivyo. Na hata hiyo free interest equity inayozungumziwa na sheria kwenye special mining licence, nayo haijataja kiwango bali inasema kutakuwa na makubaliano kulingana na kiwango cha investement yenyewe; hakuna red line iliyoko kwenye sheria hiyo inayosema serikali itachukua 50%, inawezekan makubaliano yakaishia kuwa serikali itachukua 2% au hata 0%.

Tungeweza kujadili mapungufu ya sheria hiyo ili kuiboresha lakini siyo kuipiga vita kwa madai kuwa inatukosesha mkate ambao hatujawahi kuuona.

 

[Kobello]

I love Tanzania and would never suggest anything that would turn the country into an investors "milk cow" however, I would not support any legislation or politician taking advantage of an investor that comes in legitimately to create jobs, pay taxes and support our communities.

I simply can't get it. IPO Issuance is a long and complicated process, even though in Tanzania it is sounding easy. What is happening today in Tanzania will be realized in a few years to come. The 2010 mining ACT is some sort of prohibitory piece of legislation deterring easy entry into the mining sector, which is of course difficult by default. None the less, an investor does not come in to work for the government; they come with profitability in mind; both for themselves, and for the host country

Should that be the case, before an investor comes in,

1. It should be made clear to them from the beginning that, 50% of their profits will go to the public be it dividends or taxation
2. The government should help them raise the required capital (50%) to have equitable ownership. In which the government can either sell to the public its equity or simply retain them

Otherwise it would not make sense to force them into ceding of fifty-percent of their company ownership. You must also bear in mind the formalities and stringent requirements an invertors goes through to secure a foreign loan. Americans or Japanese that I have worked with for instance, are very careful in managing their foreign investments. They are also very keen in servicing their loans. They don't want to run into catastrophe. And in our case, unnecessary traps are laid before them by our clueless politicians

Zitto There are lots of deficiencies in this ACT that can be corrected. Due to the importance of the 2010 Mining ACT in relation to our country's progress, it is imperative you respond to Mr. H.S request for a discussion. I am sure he pointed out at you specifically because you have championed various bills in the mining sector. Thus deemed you an expert, especially in the investment field. We can work with you in delivering the message to the government that some of the policies may need overhaul. Otherwise mining in Tanzania will be left for Tanzanians like some puts it.

If he just wants some air time, then thety can book Startimes or whatever...

But please don't corrupt our minds.
1. It's clear that mining lincences needs to be negotiated when expired, and the terms might not be as palatable to the investor depending on demand/scarcity of that mineral.

2.The government needs not help a private foreign investor raise any capital at any point. You explore, you get your cut ... you extract, you get another cut. When your lincence expires, you renew under "ANY" existing law. Period.

Honestly, the law is not as beneficial to Tanzanians, it's still too soft on foreigners.

 

[Emmanuel Tayari]

I love Tanzania and would never suggest anything that would turn the country into an investors "milk cow" however, I would not support any legislation or politician taking advantage of an investor that comes in legitimately to create jobs, pay taxes and support our communities.

I simply can't get it. IPO Issuance is a long and complicated process, even though in Tanzania it is sounding easy. What is happening today in Tanzania will be realized in a few years to come. The 2010 mining ACT is some sort of prohibitory piece of legislation deterring easy entry into the mining sector, which is of course difficult by default. None the less, an investor does not come in to work for the government; they come with profitability in mind; both for themselves, and for the host country

Should that be the case, before an investor comes in,

1. It should be made clear to them from the beginning that, 50% of their profits will go to the public be it dividends or taxation
2. The government should help them raise the required capital (50%) to have equitable ownership. In which the government can either sell to the public its equity or simply retain them

Otherwise it would not make sense to force them into ceding of fifty-percent of their company ownership. You must also bear in mind the formalities and stringent requirements an invertors goes through to secure a foreign loan. Americans or Japanese that I have worked with for instance, are very careful in managing their foreign investments. They are also very keen in servicing their loans. They don't want to run into catastrophe. And in our case, unnecessary traps are laid before them by our clueless politicians

Zitto There are lots of deficiencies in this ACT that can be corrected. Due to the importance of the 2010 Mining ACT in relation to our country's progress, it is imperative you respond to Mr. H.S request for a discussion. I am sure he pointed out at you specifically because you have championed various bills in the mining sector. Thus deemed you an expert, especially in the investment field. We can work with you in delivering the message to the government that some of the policies may need overhaul. Otherwise mining in Tanzania will be left for Tanzanians like some puts it.

Finding the right balance between maintaining a welcoming environment for much-needed foreign investment and preserving the oversight necessary to safeguard the national interest is always a catch 22. Foreign Direct Investments acts as great pressure and incentive to change, and if this influence is properly guided and utilized, the country can enter a new age of dynamism and prosperity. On the other hand, facing this powerful force without adequate preparations can send the country to long term failure.

As you mentioned in your prior post, Tanzania might not have enough money to invest in equitable basis in the mining sector then why not support the mining act 2010 which give a choice for investor , either to invest based on the current terms or wait until we have the capacity to invest in so called equitable basis?.

The Mining Act of 2010 should be used to further our national interests. Unfortunately I' very sadden for educated guy like yourself, who is championing theory instead of championing reality. Tanzania won't become a developed country if our young people like youself are not thinking of national interests (especially projecting Tanzania as country in the next 50 years).
We can have a debate if you wish.

 

[H.S]

you are distorting your own facts.

Who cares if it takes us 100 years to get the knowledge, and the capital to extract our own minerals (gemstones, lol)??
Who cares if Blackrock is a humomgous conglomerate that can affect investment in Tanzania?? I don't.

A shareholders Job is not just to inject capital and wait for the benefits ... he/she has to participate in the decision making process ... hence enterpreneurship.

umeanza kuona unajua zaidi ... ver wrong precedent!!

Scarcity will create itself ...remember that.

Do you think the millionaire investors who invested with Bernard Maddof participated in decision making process. Katika ulimwengu wa biashara kuna investors, kuna fund managers, kuna business leaders.

Usichanganye biashara ya $100m na biashara ya kiosk cha kuuza bia.

 

[H.S]

The whole purpose of having mining licenses limited in time, is to give the GOT the opportunity to evaluate if the licence issued is beneficial to the country. In this case , GoT may simply refuse to renew the licence and If Ambassador Mpungwe is standing for shareholders' interests, I would assume, having a 50% stake is more value to his shareholders than losing the license whole together.

You are not rebutting what I said, you are basically affirming and justifying nationalization.

 

[H.S]

If he just wants some air time, then thety can book Startimes or whatever...

But please don't corrupt our minds.
1. It's clear that mining lincences needs to be negotiated when expired, and the terms might not be as palatable to the investor depending on demand/scarcity of that mineral.

2.The government needs not help a private foreign investor raise any capital at any point. You explore, you get your cut ... you extract, you get another cut. When your lincence expires, you renew under "ANY" existing law. Period.

Honestly, the law is not as beneficial to Tanzanians, it's still too soft on foreigners.

You are missing the whole point. tatizo sio re-negotiation. Tatizo ni kutaifisha hisa za mwekezaji wakati ulishamuahidi hisa/uwekezaji zake ziko salama .

Kubadilisha tax code ni jambo linalokubalika, kupora hisa will not take you anywhere. Huwezi kujenga misingi ya uchumi as a Government kama huwezi kuaminika.

 

[H.S]

Naona kuwa kuna wanaopiga vita sheria hii siyo kwa sababu za kiuchumi kama wanavyotaka kutufahamaisha bali ni kwa sababu ya kutokuijua sheria yenyewe inasemaje. Ingawa sheria hiyo ina mapungufu kadhaa, mapungufu hayo hayafanyi sheria nzima iwe useless ya kufukuza wawekezaji waliokuwa wakitusaidia kiuchumi na sasa wanaondoka kwa sababu ya sheria hiyo mbaya, na hivyo kuathiri uchumi wetu. Utashangaa mtu mwenye akili zake timamu anapiga kelele kuwa serikali inataka kutaifisha 50% ya miradi ya madini wakati hamna kipengele chochote kwenye sheria kinachosema hivyo. Na hata hiyo free interest equity inayozungumziwa na sheria kwenye special mining licence, nayo haijataja kiwango bali inasema kutakuwa na makubaliano kulingana na kiwango cha investement yenyewe; hakuna red line iliyoko kwenye sheria hiyo inayosema serikali itachukua 50%, inawezekan makubaliano yakaishia kuwa serikali itachukua 2% au hata 0%.

Tungeweza kujadili mapungufu ya sheria hiyo ili kuiboresha lakini siyo kuipiga vita kwa madai kuwa inatukosesha mkate ambao hatujawahi kuuona.

Wewe umeona faida gani ya kiuchumi ktk sheria hii.

Ktk wa TZ milioni 45 unamjua hata mmoja aliyeanza kumiliki hisa kwa sababu ya sheria hii?

Unafahamu kwamba idadi ya wa TZ wachimbaji wadogowadogo wamepungua kwa kuwa serikali imepandisha ada ya leseni na wao hawana uwezo wa ada ya leseni?

Hii mada haikuletwa hapa bila ya utafiti.

 

[H.S]

Honestly, the law is not as beneficial to Tanzanians, it's still too soft on foreigners.

If it is too sost kwa nini hakuna muwekezaji hata mmoja aliyekuja kuwekeza in gemstone mining tangu sheria hii ipitishwe?

Hii mentality ya kuamini kwamba ili Mtanzania afaidike inabidi muwekezaji akomolewe inawagharimu na ndio maana hakuna hisa hata moja ya gemstone mining company inayouzwa DSE ili wa TZ wamiliki.

 

[Kichuguu]

Wewe umeona faida gani ya kiuchumi ktk sheria hii.

Ktk wa TZ milioni 45 unamjua hata mmoja aliyeanza kumiliki hisa kwa sababu ya sheria hii?

Unafahamu kwamba idadi ya wa TZ wachimbaji wadogowadogo wamepungua kwa kuwa serikali imepandisha ada ya leseni na wao hawana uwezo wa ada ya leseni?

Hii mada haikuletwa hapa bila ya utafiti.

Sidhani kama kweli umefanya utafiti aisee, inaonekana ulipatwa na hasira sana kutokana na serikali kulizamisha Tanzaniteone ifloat 50% ya shares kwenye market; hukufurahia uwezekano wa watanzania wengine kunua share hizo hata kama ni stock 10 tu.

Hata kabla ya sheria hiyo kulikuwa hakuna economic benefit zozote zinazolingana na thamani ya madini hayo kwa taifa. Kwa hiyo kama hakuna faida yoyote leo, basi basi huwezi kusema lolote kuhusu hasara za sheria hiyo.

Nimesoma article yako kwa makini sana mpaka nikachukua trouble ya kusoma sheria yenyewe inasemaje. Nimeweka kopi ya sheria hiyo unisaidie kukiona kifungu hicho controversial kinacholazimisha serikali ichukue 50% lakini hujafanya hivyo. Ndiyo maana ninaona kuwa unalalamika kwa vile hujasoma sheria yenyewe inasemaje, bali unaitafasri kwa harakaharaka tu.

Claims zako zina conjectural component kubwa kuliko factual component.

Kama Tanzaniteone wameambiwa wauze 50% ya hisa kwenye market, basi wafanye hivyo; it is a rule of law. Na iwapo hakuna mtanzania wa kuweza kuzinunua hisa hizo, basi watakuwa na sababu ya kuiambia serikali kuwa hakuna mtanzania atakayemudu. After all wewe kama mtaalamu wa uchumi unajua wai kuwa kuuza share kwenye soko la hisa siyo kuzigawa hisa hizo, bali ni kuongeza mtaji utakaotokana na wanunua hisa hizo, na hivyo kupanua kampuni.

 

[H.S]

Sidhani kama kweli umefanya utafiti aisee, inaonekana ulipatwa na hasira sana kutokana na serikali kulizamisha Tanzaniteone ifloat 50% ya shares kwenye market; hukufurahia uwezekano wa watanzania wengine kunua share hizo hata kama ni stock 10 tu.

Sifurahii uwezekano wa Watanzania wengine kununua hisa hata kama ni 10 wakati hizo hisa za TanzaniteOne tayari zinauzwa London Stock Exchange na kila mtu including Watanzania wana uhuru wa kuzinunua? Let us focus on policy analysis instead of making unwarranted personal accusations that have no merit.

Ina maana siasa za sheria hii zimekusadikisha bila ya TanzaniteOne ku float shares DSE wewe huna namna ya kukamata shares? Ndio maana nilishasema hii sheria ni ya kisiasa sio uchumi. Sheria hii ilip[itishwa mwaka 2010, mwaka wa uchaguzi.

Ukisoma maandishi yangu kwa utulivu utaelewa what I am trying to say.

 

[H.S]

Nimesoma article yako kwa makini sana mpaka nikachukua trouble ya kusoma sheria yenyewe inasemaje. Nimeweka kopi ya sheria hiyo unisaidie kukiona kifungu hicho controversial kinacholazimisha serikali ichukue 50% lakini hujafanya hivyo. Ndiyo maana ninaona kuwa unalalamika kwa vile hujasoma sheria yenyewe inasemaje, bali unaitafasri kwa harakaharaka tu.

Claims zako zina conjectural component kubwa kuliko factual component.

Kama Tanzaniteone wameambiwa wauze 50% ya hisa kwenye market, basi wafanye hivyo; it is a rule of law. Na iwapo hakuna mtanzania wa kuweza kuzinunua hisa hizo, basi watakuwa na sababu ya kuiambia serikali kuwa hakuna mtanzania atakayemudu. After all wewe kama mtaalamu wa uchumi unajua wai kuwa kuuza share kwenye soko la hisa siyo kuzigawa hisa hizo, bali ni kuongeza mtaji utakaotokana na wanunua hisa hizo, na hivyo kupanua kampuni.

I already said 'free loader interest' tafsiri yake ni free equity ama hisa za bure. Tafsiri ya kipengele kile ndio basis ya Serikali kusema wanataka kuona Stamico inapata hisa za bure. Sasa hivi kuna mazungumzo btn Serikali na TanzaniteOne, inawezekana Serikali ikakubali kwamba zisiwe bure lakini msimamo wa awali ni kwamba serikali ilitaka hisa za bure. Magazeti ya TZ na ya nje ya nchi zaidi ya 20 yalisham quote Naibu Waziri akiweka wazi msimamo wa Serikali.