Why are Russian companies exiting Africa?

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

According to Bloomberg, the Darwendale has been tied to Russia since 2006, when former Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe, took the concession from a local unit of South Africa’s Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. and handed it to Russian investors. The first venture to try and tap the deposit was named Ruschrome Mining – it included a state-owned mining company, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., Russian defence conglomerate Rostec, Vnesheconombank and Vi Holding.

Despite consistent assurances made by high-ranking Russian officials that Africa is “in the mainstream of Russia’s foreign policy” have not been substantiated by systematic practical activities, and worse serious lack of state support for sustaining effective Russia-African economic ties have necessitated the pulling out of a number of Russian companies from Africa.

According to various sources, Russian-African economic cooperation and partnerships continue to face challenges and obstacles, including inadequate knowledge of the Africa’s investment landscape and lack of appreciable state support, while Moscow seems to increasingly prioritise anti-Western rhetoric and political confrontation in the context of the great power competition in Africa.

Undoubtedly, a number of Russian companies have largely underperformed in Africa, experts described was primarily due to multiple reasons. Most often, Russian investors strike important investment niches that still require long-term strategies and adequate country study. Grappling with reality, there are many investment challenges including official bureaucracy in Africa.

In order to ensure business safety and consequently realize the target goals, it is necessary to attain some level of understanding the priorities of the country, investment legislations, comply with terms of agreement and a careful study of policy changes, particularly when there are sudden changes in government. It is important to study the African market structure, the investment climate, the capabilities of potential business partners and the characteristics of African customers.

Over the past few years, corporate Russian companies have shown interests in investing in the region. In practical terms, those corporate Russian companies that managed, at least, to make inroads there, a few have already exited citing “technical and operational” reasons. At the same time, the Russian corporate business leaders demonstrate negative attitude towards Africa. A general analysis shows that Russian media is under-orienting Russian business community about Africa.

While Asian states, Europe and the United States often refer to Africa as the continent of the 21st century, Russians view it from negative perspectives. Of great importance for the current successful development of the African economy is closely related to deepening of business and investment integration processes with foreign players.

Several reports confirmed that Russia has abandoned its lucrative platinum project contract that was signed for $3 billion in September 2014, the platinum mine in the sun-scorched location about 50 km northwest of Harare, the Zimbabwean capital. Reasons for the abrupt termination of the bilateral contract have still not been made public, but Zimbabwe’s Centre for Natural Resource Governance pointed to lack of capital for the project.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov launched the $3 billion Russian project back in 2014, after years of negotiations, with the hope of raising its economic profile in Zimbabwe. The development of the platinum deposit in Darwendale involves a consortium consisting of the Rostekhnologii State Corporation, Vneshekonombank and Vi Holding in a joint venture with some private Zimbabwe investors as well as the Zimbabwean government.

According to Bloomberg, the Darwendale has been tied to Russia since 2006, when former Zimbabwe president, Robert Mugabe, took the concession from a local unit of South Africa’s Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. and handed it to Russian investors. The first venture to try and tap the deposit was named Ruschrome Mining – it included a state-owned mining company, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., Russian defence conglomerate Rostec, Vnesheconombank and Vi Holding.

The Darwendale project was not tendered, according to available information from government website sources monitored both in Russia and Zimbabwe. With its cordial relations, Russia was simply offered the lucrative mining concession without participating in any tender. After the project launch, Brigadier General Mike Nicholas Sango, Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to the Russian Federation, told me in an email that “Russia’s biggest economic commitment to Zimbabwe to date was its agreement in September 2014 to invest US$3 billion in what is Zimbabwe’s largest platinum mine”.

“What will set this investment apart from those that have been in Zimbabwe for decades is that the project will see the installation of a refinery to add value, thereby creating more employment and secondary industries. We are confident that this is just the start of a renewed Russian-Zimbabwean economic partnership that will blossom in coming years. Our two countries are discussing other mining deals in addition to energy, agriculture, manufacturing and industrial projects,” Ambassador Sango added.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa said his government would soon open up the platinum sector to all interested foreign investors. Zimbabwe has the world’s second-largest platinum reserves after South Africa. With the rapidly geopolitical changes, Mnangagwa has been committed to opening up Zimbabwe’s economy to the rest of the world in order to attract the much-needed foreign direct investment to revive the ailing economy and make maximum use of the opportunities for bolstering and implementing a number of large projects in the country. That Zimbabwe would undergo a “painful” reform process to achieve transformation and modernisation of the economy.

Zimbabwe has various sectors besides mining. There is a possibility of greater participation of Russian economic operators in the development processes in Zimbabwe, and southern Africa. But Russians need to move away from too much rhetoric to concrete economic engagement over the next years. Most often officials speak about Russia, claiming that Zimbabwe has had good and time-tested relations from Soviet days. Diplomatic relations between Zimbabwe and Russia already marked the 40th year and yet not a single industrial facility to boast of in that country. Zimbabwe is a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Early March, Russia’s VTB head Andrei Kostin, said in an interview with the French newspaper Les Echos, that the VTB might sell its subsidiary bank in Angola due to sanctions. According our research, VTB was one of the first to be added to the United States and European Union (EU) sanctions lists, which hit the bank’s international business hard, following the launch of the military operation in Ukraine in February last year.

“We haven’t opened any new offices in other countries during the past year. We are looking at the possibilities. It is difficult for a sanctioned bank to expand geographically, with the possible exception of Iran. Expansion is difficult even in

Africa. Our branch in Angola has suffered from the sanctions, and we’ll probably have to sell it,” Kostin said.

According its information portal, VTB owns 50.1% of Banco VTB Africa. The president of the Angolan state-owned company Endiama, Antonio Carlos Sumbula, owned the other 49.9% of the bank’s shares. But, VTB currently focuses on work in Russia and in countries with which there has a large volume of foreign trade, above all China, trade with which reached $190 billion in 2022.

In December 2018, Russia’s Nornickel terminated its deal with Botswana’s BCL Group. According to TASS News Agency, quoting the media release, Russia’s Norilsk Nickel has terminated its agreement to sell African assets to Botswana’s BCL Group, including a 50% stake in the Nkomati joint venture.

It said that the Russian company would continue to seek damages from the BCL Group for the losses it suffered due to BCL’s failure to meet the terms of the agreement. The termination of the agreement would also enable Norilsk Nickel to pursue its own strategy for the African assets, Michael Marriott, Norilsk Nickel Africa’s Chief Executive, said as quoted by the press service.

“We will continue to pursue our claims against the BCL Group and the Botswana Government to recover the significant loss we have suffered as a result of their unlawful breaches,” Michael Marriott stressed.

In East African region, Russia’s RT-Global Resources and Rosneft quitted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s oil refinery project and many major infrastructure deals. Russia had pledged $4 billion but later disagreements over terms and frustration over in-fighting, intrigue and lobbying forced them to pull out of the country. The Ugandan government team noted that the Russian consortium exhibited inadequate assurance and availability of preferred alternative foreign contractors with comparatively high bidding terms.

Museveni, at first, favored the Russians because, apart from considering access to weapons, the Ugandan leadership was also counting on Russia’s world superiority as a counterweight to both western powers; mainly America, and China. With Russians and the South Koreans out of the negotiations, Uganda appeared somewhat desperate, that was back in 2014.

Similarly to remind that Rosneft also abandoned its interest in the southern Africa oil pipeline construction, soon after its delegation in Angola had discussed the possible participation of the Kremlin-controlled company in exploration and development projects there. That project never appeared despite that fact that Russia has excellent relations with Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe. From both business and political perspectives, the region is considered as unipolar and a regional power all together with South Africa.

In addition, Lukoil, one of the Russia’s biggest oil companies, like many Russian companies, has had a long history going forth and back with declaration of business intentions or mere interests in tapping into oil and gas resources in Africa.

Besides technical and geographical hitches, Lukoil noted explicitly in an official report on its website that “the African leadership and government policies always pose serious problems to operations in the region.” It said that the company has been ready to observe strictly all of its obligations as a foreign investor in Africa.

In August 2015, Lukoil pulled out of the oil and gas exploration and drilling project that it began in Sierra Leone. According to Interfax, the local Russian news agency, the company did not currently have any projects and has backed away due to poor exploration results in Sierra Leone.

Kestér Kenn Klomegâh is a Public Affairs Analyst.

Abolishing Nigerian Godfatherism mentality

By Usman Muhammad Salihu

Social inequality: The godfather system reinforces social inequality by favoring candidates who come from privileged backgrounds or who have access to financial resources. This leaves many citizens without a voice in the political process and perpetuates a system of elitism.

Nigeria has long been known for its political culture of godfatherism, which refers to a system in which a powerful politician or group of politicians wield significant control over the political fortunes of others. The practice of godfatherism has been a defining feature of Nigerian politics for decades, and it has been blamed for perpetuating corruption, stifling democratic participation, and hindering economic growth and development.

Godfatherism in Nigeria is typically characterized by a system in which a powerful politician, usually an incumbent governor or party leader, sponsors and funds the candidacy of a less-established politician or aspirant for an elected office. In exchange, the godfather expects loyalty and a significant portion of the proceeds from the office once the candidate is elected.

This system has become deeply entrenched in Nigerian politics, and it has produced a political class that is more interested in personal gain and self-preservation than in serving the needs and interests of the people. The consequences of godfatherism are numerous and far- reaching, and they include:

Corruption: Godfatherism promotes corruption in the political system, as the godfather expects a significant return on their investment in the candidate. This often leads to a cycle of corruption, where the candidate engages in corrupt practices to satisfy the demands of the godfather.

Lack of accountability: The godfather system creates a culture of impunity in which elected officials feel less accountable to the people they represent. This lack of accountability undermines the credibility of the democratic process and perpetuates a culture of political apathy among citizens.

Stifling of democracy: Godfatherism stifles the growth of democracy by limiting the ability of independent-minded candidates to contest for political office. This limits the choices available to voters and undermines the democratic process.

Economic stagnation: The godfather system discourages economic growth and development by favoring candidates who are more interested in their personal gain than in implementing policies that will benefit the economy.

Social inequality: The godfather system reinforces social inequality by favoring candidates who come from privileged backgrounds or who have access to financial resources. This leaves many citizens without a voice in the political process and perpetuates a system of elitism.

Given the many negative consequences of godfatherism, it is clear that this practice must be abolished if Nigeria is to realize its full potential as a democratic and prosperous nation. This will require a concerted effort on the part of all stakeholders, including politicians, civil society organizations, the media, and the general public.

To achieve this goal, Nigeria must strengthen its democratic institutions, including the judiciary and the electoral system, to ensure that they are more independent and less susceptible to external influence. Additionally, there must be greater awareness and mobilization of the public to demand accountability and transparency from elected officials.

In conclusion, the mentality of godfatherism in Nigeria must be abolished if the country is to achieve its full potential. This will require a long-term commitment to strengthening democratic institutions, promoting accountability and transparency, and mobilizing the public to demand change. With a concerted effort from all stakeholders, Nigeria can move beyond the politics of godfatherism and towards a more democratic and prosperous future.