a tripartite report - Unctad
a tripartite report - Unctad
a tripartite report - Unctad
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
184 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE<br />
Such an open ended phrase “as soon as practicable”<br />
may cause long delays to the notifying parties<br />
given that the parties to a merger have a legitimate<br />
interest to know how long the merger control<br />
procedure will last. This is a major shortcoming<br />
petition<br />
enforcement on mergers and acquisitions<br />
aspect in Zimbabwe.<br />
In practice most merger control regimes are based<br />
on similar underlying principle of prohibiting the<br />
creation or strengthening of a dominant position<br />
which would result in either substantial lessening<br />
<br />
impediment to effective competition in a particular<br />
relevant market. The merger test is usually<br />
crafted to prohibit those mergers that either create<br />
or strengthen a position of dominance in a relevant<br />
market.<br />
The ZCA has attempted to provide for this test<br />
in Section 32 (1) that “… In determining, for the<br />
purposes of section thirty-one, whether or not<br />
any restrictive practice, merger or monopoly situation<br />
is or will be contrary to the public interest …”<br />
and Section 32 (4) “the Commission shall regard<br />
a merger as contrary to the public interest if the<br />
<br />
(a) has lessened substantially or is likely to lessen<br />
substantially the degree of competition<br />
in Zimbabwe or any substantial part of<br />
Zimbabwe; or<br />
(b) has resulted or is likely to result in a monopoly<br />
situation which is or will be contrary to the<br />
public interest”.<br />
The Section 32 (1) prohibits mergers which are<br />
contrary to public interest; Section 32 (4) impliedly<br />
<br />
(b) which covers both creation and strengthening<br />
of dominance in the market. It can be observed<br />
that the prohibition is scattered in Sections 2, 32<br />
(1), 32 (4) and 34 of the ZCA, makes the interpretation<br />
of the ZCA in so far as prohibited mergers<br />
is concerned a complicated undertaking. To make<br />
it simple, the prohibition of mergers would directly<br />
and categorically target the creation and strengthen<br />
of position of dominance/monopoly situation.<br />
If it appears that the merger is likely to substantially<br />
prevent or lessen competition in Zimbabwe<br />
or any part of Zimbabwe, the Commission then<br />
determines whether the merger is likely to result<br />
petitive<br />
gain which would be greater than and offset<br />
the effects of any prevention or lessening of<br />
competition that may result or likely result from<br />
the merger, and would not likely be obtained if the<br />
merger is prevented.<br />
The pro-competitive gains include economies of<br />
scale or other reason resulting into or are likely to<br />
<br />
business, trade or industry, necessary for the production,<br />
supply or distribution of any commodity<br />
or service in Zimbabwe.<br />
alty<br />
of up to 10 per cent of either or both of the<br />
merging parties’ annual turnovers in Zimbabwe.<br />
There are no provisions to provide for a procedure<br />
to handle a breach of merger condition as it<br />
may be ordered under Section 31 (2) (e). Invariably<br />
there is no provision to sanction such breach in the<br />
ZCA. Section 33 of the ZCA attempts to provide for<br />
this, by allowing for the registration of the CTC orders<br />
for enforcement purposes and the penalty for<br />
failure to comply with such orders. Whilst Section<br />
33 (2) provides that once registered, the order of<br />
the CTC has the effect of a civil judgment, the same<br />
Section under Subsection (7) goes on to prescribe<br />
a criminal penalty for failure to comply with any<br />
provision of the order, thus derailing its potency.<br />
This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.<br />
Penalties associated with breach of merger pro-<br />
<br />
provided in Section 34 A (4) are too wide (1 – 10<br />
per cent of either or both of the merging parties)<br />
hence giving room for exercise of greater discretion<br />
than prudence would demand. The lower limit<br />
should have been elevated especially considering<br />
the gravity of the offences as provided in Section<br />
34 A (3) (a) and (b).<br />
2.4 Consumer Protection/Unfair<br />
Competition Issues<br />
Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure<br />
<br />
truthful information in the marketplace. The laws<br />
are designed to prevent businesses that engage in<br />
<br />
advantage over competitors and may provide additional<br />
protection for the weak and those unable