Which African leaders will truly emulate the achievements of John Pombe Magufuli?

Presidents John Pombe Joseph Magufuli of Tanzania, 1959 – 2021.

Since his passing, quite a lot has been said about the life and works of Tanzania’s recently deceased president. And by most fair and sincere accounts, John Magufuli did have a tangible, measurable, commendable and signficant impact on Tanzania, taking the country along an admirable trajectory from a low income country up to the point Tanzania is now firmly considered to be a middle income country.

And most Tanzanians loved him for it.

And yet across Africa, although such success stories inspire millions and should in theory be common – they don’t happen very often, owing to a long list of failures, among them poor and uninspired leadership.

But if John Magufuli – who it must be said didn’t come from some grand or otherwise priviledged background that gave him special advantages – can achieve what he did in as short a space of time as 6 years, why can’t other African leaders do the same?

Power & Status

It is no secret that many leaders in Africa are drawn to political leadership for other reasons. They are not overly concerned about the problems their countries face, or the poverty and hardship. The overriding intention is not so much to provide good and transformative leadership in the way Magufuli did, instead a worrying number of African leaders are more bothered about power and status, leaving a leadership void in those countries, and consequently affecting the scale and pace of development.

These are the people who like to attend heads of state meetings of SADC, UN, AU, ECOWAS, etc. complete with stays in pricey hotels; they like to have smarmy business executives of dodgy companies attend state house to meet them – because it can be spun into an investment story; they love to be seen on the front covers of newspapers, to be interviewed by the likes of Al Jazeera, CNN or France 24 – making all sorts of grandiose promises, which years later, can’t be backed by any tangible achievements; they love to have the doors of their Mercedes Benz limousines opened by well dressed, neatly-shaven and altogether reverent bodyguards – who make them appear more important than they actually are; they like to attend every insignificant function that comes along, where they can be seen to be doing something or to please supporters – even when the impact of such functions on a national level is negligible and a single junior minister could have been dispatched to it. Increasing the salaries of top military officials or the trip to the UN General Assembly means more to such leaders than funding the education and welfare of poor kids in their countries’ ghettos; they like to see a band of protocol-obsessive allowance-seeking hand-clapping minions nod approvingly at everything they say, flanking them at press conferences, worshipping them on social media, inflating the sizes of their convoys, and generally putting out a false and deceptive apperance of competence and authority. For these kind of leaders, a picture taken with Barack Obama at the White House or with Bill Clinton or Richard Branson at some international conference means more than actually getting down to the hard work of resolving the youth unemployment crises in their own countries. They will talk endlessly of courting investors and trying to attract investment at these high level international gatherings, but years on – absolutely nothing comes out of it.

That love of glamour and status is more about pomp (the same english word where pomposity comes from) and let’s be absolutely clear when we say it is not leadership, and is exactly the kind of excess leaders like John Magafuli, Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba and even Julius Nyerere would despise.

Centralisation

It doesn’t matter how talented, knowledgeable and practical you think you are, you can’t adequately cater to the needs of millions of people on your own. Even if everyone within your cabinet was churning out tons of raw productivity, even if everyone in the ministries was ontop of their work, even if all government departments were working with superhuman efficiency and at 100% capacity, it’s still not enough to adequately cater for everyone’s needs from good healthcare and housing to employment and skills development, if things remain centralised.

Centralisation is a progress killer in African countries because everyone expects the president, the minister, the technocrats, the guy at the top to sort out everything for everybody. But the guy at the top doesn’t have superhuman powers to do justice to all the needs and requirements of the people he/ she leads or is supposed to represent. And his/ her priorities often are not the same as the priorities of the people in need.

If the impact of our Governments across the African continent is to be revolutionised, if we are to achieve more tangible things in less time, we need to begin to think beyond one man or woman being the person who authorises and pushes through some project or another to completion.

We need to democratise development to the point where we openly and unreservedly bring into the equation those people (or groups) whose lives are affected by governance failings, or under-service that’s not been prioritised, and empower them to be able to make a real difference in their circumstances, be it allowing them to organise themselves, to raise money, buy equipment, or build the infrastructure they need etc. without having to constantly seek authorisation from the central government.

In Malawi it means projects like the Neno road, a new international airport in Mzuzu, the new hospital promised to Michinji, and the Kapiri-Mkanda road among a long list of project promises should be treated as urgent infrastructure projects, and should be escalated, and a stringent implementation schedule set.

District officers and communities involved should be tasked with a new implementation schedule, provided funding that’s closely monitored, and subjected to regular monthly audits to strictly enforce the implementation schedule. They should also be free to solicit their own funding to add to that effort, and any failures, unexplained mishaps or delays should have serious consequences for all involved. That is the kind of thing John Magufuli would be proud of, and we’ve all seen the videos of his similar hard-hitting approach.

The way we fund, monitor and roll out major projects, and the implementation timelines need to be changed fundamentally, for projects to start being executed timely, and for them to be completed on budget.

Party allegiance vs allegiance to the country & the constitution

President Chakwera in Malawis Parliament

One of the qualities which is common in transformative leaders is that they are not afraid of stating the truth and offending powerful people.

In some cases this can be a negative quality and can lead to a leader’s downfall, but in most cases it is a good and necessary quality to have because a great leader needs to have a strong spine. He or she needs to be able to say No, when the situation calls for it. This is important since not everyone who will try and approach or influence an African President (however dignified the title of the influencer is, or however laundered the reputation of their organisation may appear) does so from a good or sincere place. Simply put, not everyone who talks to an African President has noble intentions.

Unfortunately there are so many examples of African leaders capitulating or giving into bad ideas, bad or exploitative deals when pressured, when they should infact have stood their ground firmly and said No.

Now here, I’m not talking about issues like COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines which scientifically have near global consensus on how to manage and deal with, in order to stem the spread of the pandemic.

What I mean is if a leader knows or has been made aware of the toxic influence or otherwise corrupt nature of say one or more of his own ministers or officials; he / she must act, and crack hard to decisively rectify that anomally. Even if individuals in his / her own party thinks the scandal should be ignored.

Similarly, a great leader who wants the best for his people should not allow his country to be heavily indebted to other countries or to international institutions. And if they find the debt when they get into office, they need to aggressively devise as a matter of urgency a workable, practical and stringent plan of managing and paying off the debt.

Old thinking vs 21st Century thinking

Employees at WhatsApp HQ

This fundamentally is about new wine and old wineskins.

The world is not what it was 40 or 50 years ago. While a Nelson Mandela, or a Kamuzu Banda, or a Jomo Kenyatta, or a Robert Mugabe were great and necessary needs for Africa 40 or 50 years ago, our countries at this moment have fundamentally changed and have very different needs and wants to the needs of the 60’s and 70’s; the kind of needs which cannot fully be tackled by using approaches or methods devised by African heavyweights dinosaurs.

That’s not to downplay the achievements of these great men, or to ignore the many rich lessons enshrined in their lives. Not at all. But having said that, many of them weren’t able to deal with everything properly. For example many such great leaders didn’t manage to eradicate poverty in their lifetimes, so even back then their successes had limitations.

A modern thatched house outside Lilongwe, Malawi.

Instead, our countries in Africa need leaders who understand the dynamics of the 21 Century; who ask questions such as:

what 20 practical things can we do to maximize the chances of the next WhatsApp being founded in our country?

The Africa of today needs young and dynamic leaders with vision who will pioneer projects for better connectivity, cheaper and affordable modern housing, attractive & inspired infrastructure, and well connected networks of affordable public transportation (modern trams, trains and road networks). Our countries in Africa need cheaper logistical costs for importation of desirable foreign goods, cheaper logistical costs for ease of export of the country’s processed goods without making them too expensive on international markets, State owned and run multi-billion dollar projects that will not only create thousands of jobs, but will bring forex – several of the kinds of things which we are now beginning to discover Tanzania was working towards. The list is rather long.

You can’t do that kind of thing effectively if you are still thinking of how to maintain a well-equipped secret police, or if your focus is just on winning the next election. You can’t do that if your parastatals and large public companies aren’t run by anyone under the age of 35, or when you don’t have enough women in leadership roles in such companies…

Birmingham City Library

It’s the difference between on one hand promising to build a stadium (whose long term impact on a poor country is debatable), and on the other hand working to build high quality modern libraries in each district and to bring free high speed internet to poor citizens and their children – most of whom can’t afford the often high data costs charged by private companies currently operating in African countries.

Continuing the spirit of Magafuli will require a fundamental shift in the way governance has been done in Africa for a long time. It will require true selflessness beyond party, tribal or national lines. It will mean breaking against party, regional and historic allegiances and doing what is best for everyone, not just the biggest or most powerful side. It will mean negotiating hard for the interests of the people, and not being intimidated by foreign powers or external pressure on matters of national or regional importance.

Magafulism has raised the bar extremely high for African leadership, and was well overdue. For now it remains to be seen just how many current African leaders will truly rise up to the challenge?

Why China should help Mozambique and Tanzania develop their Natural Gas production Capacities

I refer to the section 3.1 titled ‘Addressing General weakness of the economy’  and section 6.1  titled ‘Unchecked Greed and Resource Conflict’ of the above document, which has the following interesting paragraphs:

Given the prospects of high revenue earnings from economic rents of oil and natural gas, unchecked greed of business, political or other social leaders can foment and precipitate “resource conflicts”, which manifest as civil wars, regional conflicts involving neighbouring countries which share common borders, as well as in-country social divisions which weaken national solidarity. In the extreme they become a prelude to secessionist tendencies, with intent to draw new territorial boundaries curving out the regions with rich resource endowment and to declare them as independent sovereignty. That is the “resource curse” per excellence! Resource conflicts destabilize nations hosting unchecked greedy “resource seeking investments” and increase the risk to human safety, natural resource extraction infrastructures, as well as raise the overall cost of doing business.
… The discovery of huge natural gas resources has engendered heightened expectations for Tanzania with respect to revenue receipts and the likely spending power of the government. People think Tanzania can immediately get out of the poverty trap and move into the middle to high income bracket. Such popular view does not appreciate the level of investments required, the engineering challenges to be overcome and the time required to move through all the process steps before commercial gas production commences. The timeline is
between 5 to 8 years activities.

While there may be few dream images of the erstwhile Middle East and Persian Gulf countries as models for sharing national prosperity of the new gas economy, there are also nightmare images of the bad experiences of the Niger delta being repeated in the Ruvuma delta. It is common knowledge that oil production in the Niger delta has resulted in environment degradation on a massive scale, which has totally damaged the traditional local economy and livelihood which was based on fishing and agriculture. In that regard, the local communities feel “left out” of the growth and economic benefits, which have accrued to Nigeria as an outcome of exploitation of the petroleum resources. Then local communities have come to be viewed as a security threat because they have engaged in hostile activities against both the Government and the Oil industry. …

But first, lets deal with China. I’m not completely sold about them. I like their organisation and unity, and how they can achieve seemingly heavy tasks, in very short periods of time, and at a fraction of the cost west companies would undertake such tasks. But there can be a price. On quality in particular. Further, I don’t like the controversies that they tend to leave behind, or rather the alleged conduct of some Chinese companies, neatly dissected here, regarding their practices in Africa, and the implications of such practices. I also wish Chinese politicians and officials could at least raise human rights issues when dealing with countries such as Uganda, Sudan (where they’ve sent 700 troops), DRC, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia.

But that’s besides the point. Some readers of this blog will know  that there have been large Natural Gas finds off the coasts of Tanzania and Mozambique. The estimates of the finds range from  46 trillion cubic feet(tcf) to 55 tcf. for the deposits in Tanzania, and 50 tcf. to 70 tcf. for the deposits in Mozambique. In plain English it’s a fortune!

According to Standard Bank, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) will add $39 billion to the Mozambican economy over the next 20 years, boosting GDP per capita from approximately $650 in 2013, to $4500 by 2035.

The trouble is, it is being claimed that billions upon billions will be required to put in place the technology, infrastructure, structures and logistical capacities to realise the benefits of these reserves.

And I simply don’t believe it will cost that much.

Now, I may be an engineer – one who knows how to build certain things cost-effectively, but I’m not a geological engineer. I’m not a surveyor, or an industry professional within the natural gas or petroleum industry, and my contention is based purely on rebuttals such as these – in this case of the corrupt practices in the construction sector in Malawi. But having said that I can find some credible industry professionals who can provide an honest unbiased opinion of the costs involved.

In other words, the $10 billion that is claimed in the above paper as the cost of building capacity, how exactly did they arrive at such a costing? I’m not disputing it outright, I’m just curious to know how they computed the figures…. since as I stated earlier, contractors and other infrastructure developers have a bad habit of quoting say £10,000 for a job that in real terms will cost £1000 to build (that is in real money the cost of raw materials, labour, logistics). The extra £9000 goes to profits for the company …and it is this that I have a probelm with because in my view it is hugely inflated.

So if someone says some project will cost $10 billion, alarm bells automatically start ringing in my head. I begin asking, is that $10 billion the real cost of raw materials and labour, or are we factoring in wastage in terms of corruption, the profits you want your company to make – off the coffers of the undiscerning African government, and off the backs of the helpless African people??

In the long term this translates to tax payers who must be taxed heavily to pay off the debt that will be taken by the government to finance such a project. Pensions that will remain meagre, because the African government is still paying that $10 billion loan they took…school children who will continue to have poor facilities, because…well, there’s no money to invest in modern educational facilities…salaries that will remain low…lapses in security, because, well, there’s simply not enough money about to improve security or pay decent salaries… I could go on.

My point is if the Mozambican and Tanzanian governments asked the Chinese for greater degree of help, in establishing the industry, employing professionals, while maintaining ownership of the whole project and resource (or atleast a large % of it) – as opposed to letting any foreign corporation have the lions share – the governments would most probably be able to build everything cost-effectively, probably for less than £2 billion, and Tanzania and Mozambique would come out stronger than any arrangement that gives ownership (or  the lions share) of the finds to a foreign private company.

Ugandan Government Scraps Taxes on Oil, Gas, Mining Exploration

Ugandan Government Scraps Taxes on Oil, Gas, Mining Exploration

My comments

  • While on the face of it this move makes sense, I hope there is a balance to ensure that the scheme is not abused – leading to the loss of essential revenue, which Uganda needs.
  • In Malawi we had the Kayelekera Uranium mine, which was given many incentives (including a lax agreement that was too generous),  but which resulted in the loss of revenue by the government. African countries cannot afford to be conducting their affairs like this, because they are the ones who are most in need of resources – to help with economic development, poverty eradication and public investment(healthcare, education and national security). Further as I often say, when was the last time an African company was given a 70% stake in a mining interest in Europe or America?
  • It would be better and wiser, in my view, for the Ugandan government to get into the business of oil exploration. They would be able to keep more of the money derived from the natural resource – which they would then use in developing Uganda. In any case Uganda is a small landlocked country, and when you have few resources, you must utilise them wisely.
  • See my earlier article to understand my thinking on these issues.

Musevenis anti-gay law and Arizona’s Anti-gay bill

Some things we will never understand while living on planet earth. Or rather, some things – as obvious as they may be to certain people – are hard to understand to we mere mortals. At least that’s what I think…this post is yet another reminder or confirmation why I deeply dislike the paternalistic and somewhat partial tendencies of big media houses and their masters. The hypocrisy stinks.

On the same day that Yoweri Museveni the president of Uganda was signing an anti-gay bill into law in Uganda, amidst an international flurry of criticism, with the usual suspects out in their legions (see another here), denouncing Museveni, calling him names, dictator, backward,etc (even Tutu compared Uganda’s bill to Hitler’s behaviour in Nazi Germany), conservative Christians in Arizona were celebrating the signing into law of a piece of legislation that allowed religious business owners to refuse service to gay people and “others” on religious grounds. Apparently, the Arizona bill is on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, and she is being pressured to veto the bill.

Yet strangely, unlike the personal attacks on Museveni, there were no personal attacks by the big media houses on the 17 state senators who voted in favour of the Arizona Bill. Nothing as strong was said against the Arizona lot, which to me is suspect. Even the Guardian page that carried the story (and I like the Guardian) which I saw looked more like the criticism on Uganda was personal on Museveni, whereas the criticism on Arizona was watered down, and not directed to any particular individual, let alone the architects of the Arizona bill:

guardianBut that’s not all, there also seems to be economic threats. Norway and Denmark have withheld aid funds following the bill in Uganda, and there has been more than a single reference to the $400 million Uganda gets from the US. Remember how Hilary Clinton once said the US would use aid to effectively force African countries to implement laws protecting gay people? Well, this is a little bit like that,both in Uganda and even in Arizona. In particular, Governor Jack Markell of Delaware said: “the N.F.L. may be looking, or maybe should be looking, to move the Super Bowl out of the state.” In other words, if Gov. Brewer does not veto the “anti-gay bill”, then Superbowl, one of the biggest sports shows on the planet, with its huge pots of money, could, should, will relocate elsewhere. It gets worse, Barry Broome, chief executive of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, was quoted in the above article to have said the leaders of four companies looking to relocate to Arizona had put his organization on notice, saying they might reconsider [against the decision to relocate to Arizona] if the bill became law. So there you have it, jobs and money to be lost unless the law is vetoed.

But what concerns me more is not the minor bickering. Firstly why criticise another’s country’s dirt, and not that happening in your own backyard? What has Obama said about the Arizona Bill, considering he has spoken against Museveni? Why have CNN or FOX been somewhat silent about it? They’ve not made as much noise in the way that they’ve attacked Museveni…or have they? They’ve certainly not attacked or attempted to tarnish the images of any of the Arizona state senators, in the same way that they have attacked Museveni (see another link here) and made him look like the bad guy.

k-iMost African people I know are already sick of the paternalistic and hypocritical tendencies of politicians of western countries. They hate the media machinery which perpetrates views which portray Africa and Africans in a negative light, but characteristically ignores the scores of ills happening in western countries (or in countries which are considered ‘allies’). In the old days (pre-colonial and colonial) we were preached to about our primitive behaviour, we were preached to about witchcraft and black magic, and were called ‘savages’ and other unsightly terms.We were told to repent of all these ills and find God. These days we are preached to about poverty and corruption, about maternal health and disease, about democracy and education, and critically – about hating gays…

But doesn’t what is effectively a blackout on this Arizona bill just prove the same paternalistic, disparaging, patronising and dictatorial attitudes most of us are sick of, an attitude that sounds like thus: we think it is within our remit to tell you Africans what you should do and should not do. Isn’t this what is being indirectly communicated whether intentionally or not? Or I’m I missing something here?

I’m against any form of discrimination against minorities, whoever the object of that discrimination or marginalisation may be (I’m black and living in Britain so no surprises there). In the past, I have written in support of various minority causes on this blog and beyond. Further, I do in fact agree with some of the views written about the issue in Uganda. I even agree with this critique against Arizona, but only to an extent.

But I think if you are going to criticise Museveni or Ugandan politicians, who clearly have erred on this issue, maybe it would be prudent (and not only for journalistic value, but for the good of mankind) to be balanced in your criticism. Begin your charity at home, to equally criticise (and name, shame) in similarly strong terms, the list of the 17 state senators in Arizona who voted for the bill. Put them on the front page as you have done with Museveni. If that can’t be done, then there must be a good reason…otherwise, if that’s too hard, maybe you should try Saudi Arabia which like Uganda also has horrendous anti-gay laws, except unlike Uganda, homosexuality is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.

Now that would speak volumes.

Update: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoes ‘anti-gay’ bill

Why Jan Brewer Vetoed Arizona’s ‘Anti-Gay’ Bill

Reuniting Africa: Infrastructure

It was delightful to hear news that Kenya in collaboration with the Chinese government will be investing $13.8 billion to build a railway line to link its port city of Mombasa with the capital Nairobi. It is hoped that the line will eventually extend to the landlocked countries of Uganda, South Sudan and Rwanda. This is great news not only because of its Pan-African connotations, but also because it’s a step forward towards getting Africa’s infrastructure interconnected and closer to global standards ( for example to the level of the Eurotunnel).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Whenever foreigners come to Africa to visit, they always exclaim how challenging and long it can take to get from one place to another in certain areas. It’s incredible how disconnected Africa remains. The same applies to movement of goods (a factor essential for commerce and business). Often and comparatively with say Asia, it takes longer (and costs a lot more) than must necessarily be to send goods, or receive goods from one African country to another, which is not desirable.

The vastness and distances may be a problem, and environmental degradation such projects cause is also a major consideration, but that doesn’t mean that there are no workable solutions to such challenges. Often the cause of inaction or lack of progress appears to be bad politics and selfish financial interests, which end up  frustrating well-meaning projects whose economic and social benefits could be significant for a country and its neighbours, and far outweigh the negative impacts.

Take Malawi for example. Mota Engil the Portuguese conglomerate was contracted by the government of Bingu Wa Mutharika to construct a port in Nsanje (see animation of the Nsanje Inland Port via YouTube), at great expense to the Malawian tax payer.

The  project was part of a project known as the Shire-Zambezi Water Way, and whose total cost was said to be US$6 billion would have reduced the cost of importing goods by 60%.

The Malawi section of the project took years to build, and costed the Malawian government €25 million dollars. Now, almost 2 years after the sudden death of Mutharika, the first ship is yet to sail to the port. There is little or no dialogue about the way forward, the current Malawian president is in no rush to resurrect the project, even when the Malawi Trade & Investors Quarterly Magazine in 2007 wrote that Malawi spends at least US$200 million annually to import or export goods via ports in Mozambique or Tanzania. My question is this: isn’t reducing the cost of imports for landlocked countries in Africa a priority to the whole of Africa? Shouldn’t it be a priority to all Africans? Think about it… look at the US, or for that matter the European Union, and their policy of free movement of goods.

How can the countries in Africa, let alone the continent ever develop when leaders do not collaborate or are only too willing to impede such meaningful projects before they even commence? Why can’t African leaders (including the chiefs of the African Union, SADC, COMESA and African Development bank) begin to practise continuity, and put pressure on the stakeholders to get to grips with the project? Of the countries who signed the memorandum of understanding of the Shire-Zambezi Water Way, why does it appear like no one is actively seeking to resurrect and resume the project ( Is the said feasibility study Mozambique was demanding underway? If so what is the progress on that front?), since it’s undeniable that there will be mutual benefits to the greater economy of Southern Africa?

Looking at half-hearted comments from those who think they have something to lose (other shallow comments from here), you will find that the Mozambicans have to shoulder part of the blame for the stalling of the project. Against all appearance of conventional wisdom, it seem they have been dragging their feet from throwing full support behind the project, with talk of environmental assessments, etc and greater emphasis of development of roads?? Can such a massive project have been commenced and physical construction at Nsanje began without first assessing or undertaking an environmental assessment?

I’m not convinced. Either there’s something about this project that ordinary folk like us have not been told, or there was a massive miscalculation on the part of Mutharika to begin building the port. Else, it was visionary (see YouTube marketing clip ‘overselling’ the idea here), a quality often lacking within leadership across Africa.

Having said that, it is more likely than not, that the reason some people in Mozambique are unwilling to fully support the project is to do with the alleged financial loss they expect if goods are able to go straight into Malawi or Zambia and Zimbabwe, and not via Beira or Nacala.

Such a selfish narrow viewpoint undermines any potential benefit a new transportation link may create for the region. Surely, a thoughtful and better-informed African leader would have recognised the overall impact (e.g. jobs, increased trade, tourism, easier flow of resources, cheaper import costs and societal advancement)  the port will have not only to the Mozambican towns near Nsanje, but also to the greater Southern African economy of Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, or even to Rwanda and Burundi.

Very few African countries geographically formed themselves into the shape they currently take. In fact only Liberia and Ethiopia were never colonised, but even their national polity formation had a lot to do with regional colonial activity around and about them. Thus, most decisions that determined the geographical shape of African countries were made by colonialists, a figment of history most Pan Africanists would rather forget. This to me means that it is shortsighted, regressive, a deficiency in intellect and a great fallacy (most often perpetuated by ignorance), for leaders of African countries today to be fighting against each other, or indeed dashing each others economic fortunes – when there is every chance that had colonialism never occurred (as we understand it), Africa could have ended up as a vast continent of undivided Kingdoms, each with access to the sea. Something that would have looked like this:

644px-Colonial_Africa_1913_Gold_Coast_map.svg
What Africa may have looked like if colonisation hadn’t occured. What Africa may look like in the future, hundreds of years from now

That is precisely why Uhuru Kenyatta must be applauded for the visionary Mombasa Nairobi railway link.

Similar Links:

Peter Mutharika attacks Malawi govt. for ignoring ‘Ndata’ University, Nsanje port in budget

MALAWI: Dream fades for inland port project

The Shire Zambezi Waterway Project is still a priority says Sadc secretariat [August 2013]

Malawi, Mozambique agree deal on Nsanje World inland port [April 2013]

Nsanje Inland Port Mw