Conduits of Capital

“
STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON LIMITATIONS OF ONSHORE AFRICAN FUND DOMICILES:
“It is very clear that the easiest way for foreign investors to invest in Africa is through a Mauritius domicilium. I don’t think an
onshore domicile gives one, as an investor, any greater advantage or disadvantage provided the onshore authorities have
dealt with the necessary changes required to exchange controls, tax and regulatory regimes.”
– South Africa-based GP
“The thing nobody is saying is that ‘offshoring’ actually gives you the flexibility you need to do deals across the continent. If we
are to take away the ‘offshoring’ and bring it ‘onshore,’ would we have the same flexibility? And if you have to figure out rules
for 54 countries, then God help you.”
– Local LP View
“There are some major hurdles for an onshore jurisdiction to overcome to actually take off—this will take time. The first hurdle
is demonstrating that it would be a neutral jurisdiction for all stakeholders; the second is building trust and a track record; and,
the third is service orientation. All three of these are required. As an example, a domicile will fail if it does not have the service
orientation—even though it has the funding, the legal framework and the buildings and facilities.”
– Fund Administrator
“Most of the funds we invest in are domiciled in Mauritius and we are comfortable with this domicile. The location becomes
”
much more an issue if a Sub-Saharan African fund is domiciled onshore. We have a very mixed experience with onshore
Sub-Saharan African domiciles.”
– International LP
30 |