By Jabulani Chibaya
HARARE – FOR the first time in decades, Zimbabwe has published a single, audited, consolidated view of its commercial State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). That moment arrived quietly, but it matters enormously. The Mutapa Investment Fund (MIF) 2024 Annual Report, audited by Grant Thornton, is not just another statutory document. It is the first serious attempt to treat national assets as a portfolio, rather than as isolated bureaucratic outposts scattered across line ministries. This article helps you navigate what MIF is, why it was created, what the audit actually says, where value is coming from, which entities are still dragging, and how Zimbabwe’s model compares to global sovereign wealth peers.
Why Mutapa Investment Fund Exists (And Why Now)
MIF was operationalised in 2024 to consolidate 30 major SOEs under a single, commercially oriented shareholder, aligned to Vision 2030 and NDS 2. The logic is simple but overdue. Fragmented ownership had destroyed accountability, line ministries acted as owners, regulators, and referees, and loss-making SOEs became permanent fiscal risks.
MIF changes that by separating roles: the Government sets policy and regulation, MIF acts as the shareholder and capital allocator, and the investee companies are the operators. This is not a passive sovereign wealth fund. MIF follows a “FIRE” strategy: Fix, Invigorate, Reinforce, and Extract. In plain terms, this means repairing broken assets, restoring operations, strengthening governance, and only then extracting dividends or value.
The Grant Thornton Audit Opinion: What It Really Means
Grant Thornton issued a qualified audit opinion on MIF’s inaugural financial statements. That matters, but context matters more.
The audit confirms that the financial statements present a true and fair view, that IFRS valuation frameworks were applied, and that governance and controls at the Fund level are sound. However, it implicitly warns that the portfolio inherits decades of uneven accounting, weak controls, and legacy debt from the SOEs. Furthermore, financial comparability across entities is still being harmonised, and the valuations reflect the current condition, not the potential upside.
The translation for readers is this: the audit does not mean the SOEs are suddenly healthy. It means Zimbabwe now has a credible baseline from which reform can be measured. That alone is a structural breakthrough.
Source: MIF
The Portfolio Reality: Asset-Rich, Cash-Light
A balance sheet snapshot shows gross assets of roughly US$16 billion and a fair value of US$14.8–15.0 billion as of December 2024, with subsidiaries dominating at US$14.7 billion. In contrast, cash and income figures are modest: total income was US$11.9 million, comprehensive income was US$8.0 million, dividends received were US$5.8 million, and operating cash inflow was US$4.3 million.
The interpretation is clear: MIF is asset-heavy and yield-light, which is exactly what you would expect in the first year of SOE consolidation, before restructuring cycles mature.
What Is Working (And What Is Not)
There are strong performers and stabilising assets. Energy throughput is improving at Hwange and Kariba, fuel infrastructure like the National Oil Infrastructure Company pipelines has been upgraded, gold deliveries are strong at 36.4 tonnes, and telecoms companies show commercial optionality. These assets are quietly subsidising the turnaround of weaker sectors.
The areas of drag are named clearly. In roads and transport, Zimbabwe United Passenger Company faces operational inefficiencies and fleet constraints, while Air Zimbabwe remains structurally loss-making and requires deep restructuring. The National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) is undercapitalised with aging infrastructure and is dependent on recapitalisation and partnerships. In agriculture and processing, the Cold Storage Company carries a corporate rescue legacy, Cottco is exposed to climate risk and pricing distortions, and Silo Food Industries has underutilised capacity. These entities are not hidden in footnotes; they are explicitly acknowledged as turnaround cases.
Institutional Health: A Clear Scorecard
On governance, MIF has a strong foundation with a majority-independent board, key committees, and alignment with the Santiago Principles, though risk remains at the investee level, not the Fund. Financially, its health is transitional; it achieved a surplus in its first effective year and began dividend upstreaming, but its cash yield is still below 0.1%. This is early-cycle sovereign asset repair, not failure. On Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and integrity, the approach is credible, not cosmetic, with an established committee, gender balance near parity at 46% female, and zero reported cybersecurity breaches. ESG is being embedded before capital extraction, which is the right sequence.
Cluster Truths (In One Page)
The portfolio can be broken into key clusters. The Energy & Trading cluster (~US$6.5 billion), where the Hwange rehabilitation is the single biggest reform lever, determines macroeconomic stability. The Infrastructure, ICT & Logistics cluster (~US$4.2 billion) offers upside in telecoms but requires restructuring or partnerships for rail and aviation. The Mineral Resources cluster (~US$2.4 billion) of gold, platinum, and lithium is a crucial foreign exchange engine, though it is cyclical. The Agriculture & Industrials cluster (~US$1.4 billion) is strategically important for food security but is designed for a lower return on invested capital. Finally, Banking, Financial Services & Real Estate could unlock dormant land through a Real Estate Investment Trust structure but promises steady, unspectacular returns.
How MIF Compares Globally (Briefly, Honestly)
Globally, Zimbabwe’s model differs significantly. Norway’s Government Pension Fund is fully offshore, has no domestic SOE repair mandate, and focuses purely on financial returns; it is not comparable in mandate. The closest peer is Ethiopia Investment Holdings (EIH), which also consolidates SOEs as an active owner with a heavy focus on infrastructure and energy. Zimbabwe has chosen the Ethiopia/Temasek model, not the Norway model, because the core problem to solve is SOE dysfunction, not surplus recycling.
What to Watch (This Is the Investor’s Section)
Key indicators to monitor are: first, Hwange execution discipline; second, telecom monetisation pathways; third, rail and aviation partnerships; fourth, the dividend growth trajectory (not asset growth); and fifth, the consistency of governance under political pressure. Execution, not funding, is the real risk.
Final Take
The MIF is not yet a return machine. It is a repair shop for Zimbabwe’s national balance sheet. The Grant Thornton audit confirms credibility. The report confirms honesty. The next phase will test discipline. If governance holds, MIF could become Zimbabwe’s most important economic stabiliser of the next decade—quietly, structurally, and permanently.
Jabulani Simplisio Chibaya is a Data and AI Consultant specializing in data science, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and cryptocurrency innovation. A seasoned conference speaker, he also writes on the intersection of technology, regulation, and economic development.
Contact:
Cell: +263 778 921 881
Email: simplisiochibaya22@gmail.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jabulani-simplisio-chibaya
Discover more from Etimes
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.