Corporate governance is rarely tested when times are easy. It is tested when boundaries begin to blur, that is when public power and private interest find themselves uncomfortably close.
That is why the debate surrounding Thomas Utete Wushe, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and board chairperson of ART Corporation Limited, deserves careful reflection.
As shareholders prepare for the company’s upcoming annual general meeting, a document circulating among stakeholders has raised concerns over a proposal to extend Wushe’s tenure on the board. The issue is not a personal one, but institutional.
At its heart lies a simple but critical governance question: where should the line be drawn between public office and private enterprise?
Wushe has served on ART’s board since 2015 and later rose to become chair of the diversified industrial group, whose operations span batteries, tissue products and stationery manufacturing.
In October 2023, he was appointed permanent secretary in the Industry and Commerce ministry, placing him at the centre of Zimbabwe’s industrial policy architecture. In that role, he oversees frameworks that govern industries.
The convergence of these two positions has inevitably raised questions. To some shareholders and governance activists, the arrangement creates a structural tension. As permanent secretary, Wushe participates in shaping the regulatory environment governing an entire sector.
As chairperson of a private industrial group, he presides over a company operating squarely within that same ecosystem. The potential for perceived conflict is therefore difficult to ignore.
- Warrant of arrest canceled for illegal billboard accused
- Goblins ‘besiege’ school
- Vieira backs Mane for Ballon d’Or ahead of Bayern move
- The trial of Directors accused of erecting illegal billboard deferred again
Keep Reading
To be clear, the issue is not necessarily that wrongdoing has occurred. Governance debates rarely begin with evidence of misconduct. They begin with the recognition that institutions must protect themselves from circumstances that may compromise impartiality.
Modern corporate governance is built on this principle.
Zimbabwe has, over the past decade, made considerable progress in strengthening its governance architecture. The adoption of the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act and the National Code on Corporate Governance reflects a growing recognition that transparency, accountability and independence are essential to economic credibility.
Yet laws alone cannot resolve every ethical grey area.
The Public Entities Corporate Governance Act, for instance, restricts permanent secretaries from sitting on boards of public entities such as parastatals.
However, private companies listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange fall outside that statutory prohibition. This creates a technical gap between the letter of the law and the spirit of governance.
The spirit of governance demands more than formal compliance. It requires that regulators be seen to operate without favour, influence or proximity to entities whose commercial fortunes may depend on policy decisions.
This is not merely a Zimbabwean debate. Across Africa, governance codes are evolving to address precisely these kinds of overlaps. A director must be free of relationships that could reasonably be viewed as impairing objective judgment.
Other jurisdictions across the Commonwealth have adopted similar safeguards. Senior civil servants are often required to relinquish private-sector board roles upon appointment, or to observe cooling-off periods before joining companies operating in sectors they once regulated. The objective is to prevent regulatory capture and preserve public confidence in the neutrality of the state.
Zimbabwe is actively seeking to deepen investor confidence and attract new capital into its economy. For that ambition to succeed, markets must believe that regulatory frameworks apply equally to all participants — without privileged access or perceived advantage.
This is why the conversation around Wushe’s dual role matters. It is not about personalities, and it should not descend into them. Rather, it is about strengthening the guardrails that protect both public institutions and private enterprise from avoidable ethical tensions.
Zimbabwe’s civil service has long prided itself on professionalism. That reputation is reinforced when officials exercise caution in situations where competing responsibilities may arise.
