TheTiesThatBindPreview
Open in TheBrain

Zambia / Zimbabwe

Zambia

Zambia took its present name on 24 October 1964, when Northern Rhodesia became independent. Like Bechuanaland to its south-west, the country was named by British officialdom rather than by its inhabitants — "Rhodesia" after Cecil Rhodes, "Northern" to distinguish it from the colony to the south. The name it took at independence comes from the Zambezi, the river that forms its southern border. What follows is the national history; the archive's own material on the Glazer mineral claims follows beneath it.

Before the colony

The Zambezi valley and the Kalambo Falls carry a long archaeological sequence — camping tools near the falls have been radiocarbon dated to more than 36,000 years ago. The Broken Hill Man skull, recovered at Kabwe, is dated between 300,000 and 125,000 BC, and is the subject of this thought's own child, Rhodesia Broken Hill.

The territory was inhabited by Khoisan and Batwa peoples until around AD 300, when migrating Bantu began to settle. The Twa were divided between the Kafwe Twa around the Kafue flats and the Lukanga Twa around the Lukanga Swamp. The rock art at Mwela, the Mumbwa Caves and Nachikufu Cave is attributed to these hunter-gatherer groups.

1888–1924: the Chartered Company

In 1888 Cecil Rhodes, pushing British commercial and political interests through Central Africa, obtained mineral rights concessions from local chiefs. In the same year Northern and Southern Rhodesia were proclaimed a British sphere of influence, and the territory was administered by Rhodes's British South Africa Company — which took little interest in it and used it mainly as a source of labour.

The critical mineral discovery was copper. Its identification is credited in part to the American prospector Frederick Russell Burnham, who in 1895 led the massive Northern Territories (BSA) Exploration Company expedition that established major copper deposits existed in Central Africa. Burnham had seen similar formations in the United States, and noticed local people wearing copper bracelets. That company — the Northern Copper (BSA) Company — is the same entity that appears in this archive passing its rights to the Bechuanaland Exploration Company in 1914.

In 1923 the British government decided not to renew the Company's charter. Southern Rhodesia was annexed and granted self-government; after negotiation the administration of Northern Rhodesia passed to the Colonial Office in 1924 as a protectorate, with Livingstone as capital. The capital moved to Lusaka in 1935. A Legislative Council was established in which five members were elected by the small European minority — about 4,000 people — and none by the African population.

The Copperbelt

In 1928 enormous copper deposits were discovered in what became known as the Copperbelt, transforming Northern Rhodesia from a prospective white-farming colony into a copper exporter. By 1938 the country produced 13% of the world's copper. The sector was developed by two companies — Anglo American Corporation and the Rhodesian Selection Trust — which controlled it until independence.

The social cost followed quickly. Poor safety and increased taxes triggered the Copperbelt strike of 1935, which was crushed and left six miners dead. White miners struck in 1940 for higher wages, recognising their wartime leverage; African mineworkers struck again afterwards.

Federation and independence

In 1953 both Rhodesias were joined with Nyasaland — now Malawi — as the Central African Federation. Northern Rhodesia was the centre of much of the federation's turmoil in its final years, the core dispute being African demands for participation in government against European fear of losing control.

A two-stage election in October and December 1962 produced an African majority in the legislative council and an uneasy coalition between the two nationalist parties. The council demanded secession and full internal self-government. The federation was dissolved on 31 December 1963, and Northern Rhodesia became the Republic of Zambia on 24 October 1964.

Kaunda, and the copper crisis

At independence Zambia had considerable mineral wealth but few trained Zambians to run a government, and an economy dependent on foreign expertise. Most neighbouring countries were still colonies or under white minority rule.

UNIP won the pre-independence elections with 55 of 75 seats. Kenneth Kaunda became Prime Minister and then President as the country adopted a presidential system. He adopted an ideology of African socialism, close to Nyerere's in Tanzania — central planning, nationalisation, and eventually one-party rule.

In 1972 all parties except UNIP were banned, formalised in the 1973 constitution as "one-party participatory democracy". Kaunda was returned unopposed in 1973, 1978, 1983 and 1988. Dissent was not absent — the Committee of 14, drawn from seven of the eight provinces, sought a democratically elected council to curtail presidential power; Kaunda agreed to consider it, then banned it.

The economy turned in the mid-1970s. Between 1975 and 1990 Zambia's economy contracted by roughly 30%. Rather than restructure, the government borrowed heavily from the IMF and World Bank in the expectation that copper prices would recover.

Abroad, Zambia backed movements against colonial and white-minority rule — UNITA, ZAPU, the ANC and SWAPO — and hosted them. The ANC's exile headquarters was in Lusaka and ZAPU had a military base in the country, which brought South African and Rhodesian raids in reprisal.

1991 and after

One-party rule and a declining economy produced mounting dissent: strikes in 1981, protests in Lusaka and the Copperbelt in 1986 and 1987, and food riots in 1990 in which at least 30 people were killed. A coup attempt that year failed. Kaunda lifted the ban on political parties and abandoned the promised referendum in favour of a direct multiparty election.

In 1991 Frederick Chiluba and the Movement for Multiparty Democracy won: 76% of the presidential vote and 125 of 150 National Assembly seats, with UNIP taking the remaining 25. Chiluba, himself a former union leader, stood to the right of Kaunda — liberalising the economy under IMF and World Bank pressure, re-privatising state enterprises including the copper industry, and removing subsidies, most notably on corn meal.

The democratic promise was qualified. Constitutional amendments and detentions of opponents drew criticism, and the UK and Denmark withdrew aid. Before the 1996 elections the constitution was amended to bar from the presidency anyone whose parents were not both Zambian citizens — aimed directly at Kaunda, whose parents were Malawian. UNIP and its allies boycotted. A further coup attempt in 1997 led to 84 arrests, including Kaunda's; 54 soldiers were convicted and sentenced to death, later largely commuted.

The Glazer claims in Zambia

On 16 December 1991 _Sam Glazer(Bernard’s son and Trustee of the Glazer Will Trust) drafted a letter to Mr. Neil Armstrong of Armstrong Attorneys in Botswana. It read:  _

As discussed please find enclosed copies of the following documents:

1. Title Deed Farm 157 (a) – Kafue Hot Springs (Kafue).

2. Title Deed Farm 158 (a) – Sugar Loaf (Kafue).

3. Title Deed Farm 159 (a) – Ninga (Kafue).

4. Title Deed Farm 709 – Chanobie (Kafue). [Reinstated to Tati Co. 6 September 1999]

5. Title Deed Farm 726 – Algoa (Luangwa). [Reinstated to Tati Co. 6 September 1999]

6. Certificate Number 40 – Northern Rhodesia Mines Department.

7. Certificate of registration of special grant number 003.

* * 5 Jan. 1923: Memorandum of Agreement between BSAC and South African Townships Mining and Finance Corporation Limited

    * 26 Jun. 1939: BSAC & South African Townships Mining and Finance Corporation Limited -  Deed of Variation

* 27 Jun. 1939: South African Townships Mining and Finance Corporation Limited and Another to African Gold  & Base Metal Holdings Limited – Deed of Assignment of Mining Rights

8. Certificate of registration of special grant number 004.

* 15 Dec. 1924: Memorandum of Agreement between BSAC and Kafue Copper Development Company Limited

9. Certificate of registration of special grant number 005.

* 15 Dec. 1924: Memorandum of Agreement between    BSAC and Bechuanaland Exploration Company Limited

10. Certificate of transfer number 2.

The above land and mineral rights were owned by the Bechuanaland Exploration Company plc (BE), an associate company, up until they were expropriated by the Zambian government in approximately 1970. BE never gave up the right to claim compensation from the Zambian government in respect of these assets. In 1988, all claims that BE had against the Zambian government, not only in respect of the above assets but generally in respect of all land and mineral rights previously owned by BE, were transferred to Tati Company Limited. (Italics author’s own.)

A formal agreement recording the transfer was not concluded between the companies. The transaction was effected by means of journal entries in their respective financial records. The transfer was made in contemplation of the anticipated members voluntary liquidation of BE, which was commenced in 1989.

Please find attached a draft memorandum of agreement between the two companies. Could you advise whether such an agreement should be entered into and if so, whether the wording contemplated is correct? Furthermore, your advice on how to proceed with the claims and/or the reinstatement of the assets would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely

for: TATI COMPANY LIMITED

SAM GLAZER

DIRECTOR

The relevant section of the draft memorandum referred to in the above draft memorandum read as follows:

Draft Memorandum of Agreement between Tati Company Limited and B.E.

It has now been agreed:

1. That BE cedes, for a nominal amount of Z$2, to Tati all its rights to claim from Government compensation in respect of the assets and/or the return of the assets.

2. That this agreement shall cover any other assets previously owned by BE and subsequently expropriated by Government.

It is noted that the shareholders of BE and Tati are to all intents and purposes the same.

The semantics of this memorandum are important: Sam stated explicitly that in 1988, ‘all claims that B.E. had against the Zambian government, not only in respect of the above assets but generally in respect of all land and mineral rights previously owned by BE, were transferred to Tati Company Limited’ (author’s emphasis). The first implication of this sentence is quite clear: BE also held other land and mineral rights in Zambia and ‘not only’ the assets mentioned in the memorandum. The second implication is ambiguous: it clearly states that BE had ‘previously’ owned other land and mineral rights; however it’s not clear whether this statement implies that they are now owned by Tati, or that they are now owned (were expropriated) by the Zambian government.

Above all, one must bear in mind that Bechuanaland acquired all the rights and entitlements for the Northern Copper (BSA) Company on 28 September 1914.

The financial statements of BE stated consistently from 1970 onwards that ‘three farms’ belonging to the company had been expropriated. Presumably these were the same three farms that Sam referred to in his 1992 memorandum. This would also imply that whatever other land and mineral rights BE had held was not expropriated; they were transferred to Tati Co.

Although Kafue, Sugar Loaf and Hot Springs – the three farms mentioned in the memorandum – were described as farms, they were in fact mineral areas; each covered an area of 10 square miles, or 25km2; together they formed a single mineral area which was identified as MT24. Combined with two other mineral areas (MT3 and MT4), it was part of a much larger mineral area called the Big Concession (see map). Situated a few miles northwest of a town called Mumbwa, the Big Concession was a triangular piece of ground that covered 700 square miles (1 800 km2). It originated from three separate grants made by the British South Africa Company in 1895; these three grants were amalgamated then subdivided and, by 1922, had been assigned to three different companies: Kafue Copper Development Co Ltd; Bechuanaland Exploration Co Ltd; and The South African Townships Mining & Finance Corporation Ltd. (The South African Townships Mining & Finance Corporation Ltd transferred its rights to African Gold & Base Metal Holdings Ltd in 1939.) These companies in turn did deals with the BSAC whereby each one opened the area under its control to general prospecting; the BSAC got the first 10% of any licence fees or royalties received for so-called ‘administration charges’; it also got 35% of the remaining 90%; the assignee company got the other 65% (see Appendix A: Flowcharts). However, according to a geological report (No 27) on the area completed in 1968 ‘no mining [was] undertaken in the Big Concession [from] about 1923, apart from the working of the dumps at Sable Antelope during 1952 and the period 1955-6’.

According to the abovementioned geological report, the BSAC’s interests in terms of the above agreement ‘were transferred to the Government of the Republic of Zambia on the eve of Independence in 1964’.

A government White Paper on ownership of mineral rights in Northern Rhodesia, as it was then known, was issued in that same year and stated that £135 million before tax (£70 million after tax) had accrued to the BSAC by that time; the BSAC received £40 for every ton of copper mined. It estimated that if the private ownership of mineral rights continued the company would receive between £7 million and £12 million a year after tax for the next 22 years, until 1986; the national budget for African (meaning black) education at the time was £3 million. Why 1986? It turns out that an agreement had been signed in 1950 whereby the BSAC would give the state a 20% cut of its share of the royalties until 30 September 1986; thereafter the company’s entitlement to royalties would be transferred entirely to the state. On the surface, therefore, the date of this transfer of royalty interests was brought forward by 22 years as a result of the country gaining its independence.

This is further confirmed in South Africa Inc.: David Pallister, Sarah Stewart, Ian Lepper which states:” Anglo had first invested in the Rhodesian copperbelt (most of it in present-day Zambia) in 1924. This was the same year in which Cecil Rhode’s B.S.A Company transferred its 30 year old administration of Northern Rhodesia to a legislative council that excluded Africans. After Anglo incorporated its Rhodesian holding company, Rhodesian Anglo American (Rhoanglo), in London in December 1928…” “The lineage began as far back as 1928, when Rhoanglo was formed in London to finance the expansion on the copperbelt. It moved to Zambia in 1954, and ten years later was renamed Zambian Anglo American (Zamanglo) when the country acquired its independence. In 1970, when the new government took 51% of the company, it was transferred to the tax haven of Bermuda to receive the compensation monies in the form of dividends from government bonds. Four years later, it was renamed Minorco and was soon to overtake Charter as the group’s overseas flagship. The two big copper mining companies, Anglo and the US firm AMAX, had sent £260 million out of the country in dividends, interest and royalty payments during the previous ten years. The B.S.A Company had received £82 million net for its mineral royalties from 1923 to 1964. Over the same period, the British Treasury received £40 million in taxes, in part because the mining companies were based in London until the 1950’s.”

It’s also not made clear whether the other parties to the contract – Kafue Development Company, BE and African Gold & Base Metal Holdings Ltd – were made to give up their ownership – and consequent share of the royalties – in every instance or only in some.

The arguments presented for the nationalisation of mineral ownership in the 1964 White Paper were simple and compelling:  Firstly, a private, UK-registered company controlled the country’s most valuable resource – and one that was exhaustible to boot. Surely any decisions to exploit this resource should be made by the government on behalf of the people of the country. And, more to the point, surely Zambia and not some other country should benefit financially from its resources. Apparently, by 1964 the BSAC had only reinvested about 10% of its total gross royalty receipts in Zambia and its Zambian portfolio represented only one-fifth of its total investment portfolio.

The original or founding agreements were struck between the emissaries of Cecil John Rhodes and various African tribal chiefs or kings during the late nineteenth century; the African chiefs granted Rhodes ownership of the minerals in exchange for a few hundred pounds a year, maybe some guns, possibly a steamship patrol for protection, and invariably the promise of education and other trappings of ‘civilisation’. The agreements took the form of letters addressed to the company, drawn up on behalf of the illiterate chiefs by Rhodes’s lawyers who used deliberately ambiguous language that failed to draw a clear distinction between the British Crown and the company. Rhodes in turn waved these letters in front of the British prime minister, Lord Salisbury, and gained a Royal Charter, signed by Queen Victoria on 29 October 1889; the Charter gave the company immense powers to ‘make treaties, promulgate laws, preserve the peace, maintain a police force and acquire new concessions’. Essentially, it could run the colonies like a government but make profits as a private company. Rhodes’s model was the highly profitable East India Company which had done the same thing in India a century before. In both cases Britain enjoyed the fruits of control over vast natural and human resources without incurring any direct costs other than the occasional military intervention. The BSAC became known as the ‘Chartered Company’ and incurred the costs of running and developing the country.

According to the 1964 White Paper, the British government took over the administration of both Southern and Northern Rhodesia from the BSAC in 1923. The company agreed to drop its claim of a £1,6 million administration deficit in exchange for ‘half the revenue from certain future land sales’ and recognition of the company as owner of all Northern Rhodesia’s mineral rights in perpetuity. As various Englishmen argued in disgust at the time, the British government effectively gave away the mineral rights of an entire country to a private company, registered on its (Great Britain’s) own shores, without consulting the people of that country. The White Paper even implied a certain degree of complicity between the British government and the company in maintaining the status quo after it had been challenged publicly on numerous occasions and accused of having its own narrow financial interests ahead of those of an entire nation. It alleged that by the time of independence the British government had allegedly earned some £12 million in taxes on the royalties earned by the BSAC.

What is not established here

The national history above comes from the general historical record, not from this corpus. The archive holds corporate and concession documents; it does not hold a narrative history of Northern Rhodesia or Zambia. Where this note states pre-colonial, colonial or post-independence history, the source is the general record, as marked in Provenance.

The Glazer material below is the archive's own, and it is the stronger half of this note. It is a contemporaneous 1991 letter and the researcher's analysis of it, not a summary.

The expropriation date is approximate. The letter says "approximately 1970"; the BE financial statements are said to have recorded three expropriated farms "consistently from 1970 onwards". The exact instrument is not in this note.

This thought has no type. Zambia / Zimbabwe carries no typeId, which is unusual for a place in this brain and means it will not appear in Type-based audits.

Provenance

Where to read further

Rhodesia Broken Hill carries the Broken Hill (Kabwe) material — the mine, the skull, and the company that took its name. BFSummary5 carries the summary series this note's analysis draws on. Bechuanaland / Botswana, the parent, carries the concession architecture from which the Zambian mineral rights descend.

This note is two documents in one: a national history, and the archive's case on what happened to the mineral rights inside it. The second is the reason the thought exists.