The Sunday Mail
Darlington Musarurwa Business Editor —
AS the Meikles saga continues to unravel, Mr Benjamin Ward — the key figure allegedly at the centre of a plot to oust executive chairman Mr John Moxon from the Meikles empire — now reportedly claims he is being framed by senior executives who are planning to scupper his appointment as chief operating officer of the business.
Details gathered by The Sunday Mail Business and published on November 20, 2016 indicate an alleged plot by some shareholders to wrest the business from Mr Moxon. Government and Meikles are currently locked in negotiations over a debt that was originally owed by the former.
In 1998 Meikles was instructed to place a special deposit of US$42,6 million with the RBZ, earning an interest rate of 4,68 percent. Between 1999 and 2001, the company withdrew more than US$21,8 million, leaving a balance of US$35 million, which the RBZ converted to its own use.
As Meikles sought to recover the money, there were differences between the RBZ and company in validating the debt. While the business claimed Government owed it US$90 million — which includes interest on the principal debt and lost opportunity costs — subsequent negotiations seem to have settled on a figure of US$78,6 million.
To liquidate the debt, Government issued a Treasury Bond on June 10, 2015, followed by further issuances on December 23 and December 31, 2015.
But the recent validation of the debt by the Public Debt Management Office, which falls under the Finance Ministry, indicates that Government could have overpaid on the debt by US$29 million.
Sources had earlier said restless shareholders intended to use the misunderstanding over the debt to engineer the ouster of Mr Moxon, citing the “unsatisfactory” manner through which the negotiations were handled under his watch.
It was also claimed that Mr Benjamin Ward, a former employee of Lornho, would subsequently replace Mr Moxon. The new deal was supposed to rope in senior figures in both the horticulture industry and politics (names supplied) under the guise of indigenisation.
But the plans seem to be coming unstuck. Though there was overwhelming evidence linking Mr Ward to a board appointment at Meikles, he denied any “fiduciary engagements” with the group in an interview with The Sunday Mail Business on November 17.
“That is absolutely untrue. John Moxon and I are friends, and he has invited me to a couple of board meetings because they (Meikles) have been having some financial challenges.
“But I absolutely don’t have any fiduciary links to Meikles. I am a businessman; I am self-employed. I live in Cape Town, my family is in Cape Town and I am only here on business.
“I know when I came to Zimbabwe, a lot of people have been uncomfortable and have been circulating a lot of untrue information about myself. It is absolutely untrue. There is not even an ounce of truth in that,” said Mr Ward.
But the former Lornho executive has since made a U-turn, conceding that he was, in fact, earmarked to become the chief operating officer of Meikles.
His appointment, however, seemed to have hit a snag after an appraisal of his curriculum vitae (CV) done by Meikles concluded that it “was laced with embellishments and downright misrepresentations”, adding: “The net result of an assessment of Mr Ward’s integrity is that one is left with the unavoidable conclusion that Mr Ward has been less than honest in his dealings with Meikles Limited pertaining to his qualifications.”
Plot within a plot
The businessman claimed recently that appraisal was in fact a report that was invented by executives who feared having their authority “eroded” by Mr Ward’s appointment as chief operating officer.
Claims are also that an independent review of the report was conducted at the behest of Mr John Moxon — the executive chairperson. The report was said to fictitious and its authors are unknown.
But investigations actually show that Meikles was so concerned about the reputational damage that the business would have suffered had the allegations in the report been proved that Mr Moxon wrote a letter to the department of immigration on September 17, 2016 directing them to stop processing Mr Ward’s temporary employment permit.
Last week, Meikles spokesperson Mrs Rudo Chimedza told The Sunday Mail Business that an application on behalf of Mr Ward for a position at Meikles was initially made to the department of immigration on March 31, 2016, but it was declined without any reasons.
Meikles, however, indicated that it was no longer “possible to consider Mr Ward for any position within the group”.
“Subsequent to this date, no valid application or appeal has been made by the company. The original application had a motivation in support of Mr Ward which was included in the application.
“Internal reports are confidential to the company. Not all reports lead to any action or are considered relevant
“No internal report influenced the decision of the Immigration Department to deny the work permit as none was submitted to Immigration,” said Mrs Chimedza.
Some shareholders have been angling to oust Mr Moxon since last year over corporate governance issues. There are concerns over the US$12 million owed to Meikles by Gondor Capital and Coolbay, companies linked to the businessman.
There are also questions surrounding the investment in Mentor Africa, a South African firm. Meikles acquired a 35 percent stake in the company in 2008 by combining the business with Cape Grace Hotel — a unit of Meikles — and converting cash held by the hospitality concern into equity.
A further US$22 million was also transferred to South Africa as part of the group’s expansion plans. The investments were supposed to mobilise more than US$200 million for capital investments into Zimbabwe.
But shareholders have not reaped any dividends from the investments. On the contrary, the annual results for the year-ended March 31, 2016 show an impairment of investment in Mentor Africa Limited of US$2,9 million. It is believed that the displeased shareholders were therefore willing to rope in Mr Ward to wrest the business from Mr Moxon.
New investments into the distressed business were supposed result in a new shareholding structure, which was also envisaged to include key political and business figures (names supplied).
