ZCCM-IH Minority Shareholders and the Problem of Neo-Colonial Meddling in Zambia’s Sovereign Affairs

By Dr. Chris Patricks

CAPE TOWN,

The principle of national sovereignty is not up for debate. It is enshrined in international law and the United Nations Charter. Yet, in 2025, we are once again witnessing a troubling resurgence of foreign interference, disguised as shareholder activism, threatening the very dignity and autonomy of African nations.

In this case, the offender is a French national, Thierry Charles, a minority shareholder in Zambia’s state-linked mining investment company, ZCCM-IH.

Over the past week (and many times before) Mr. Charles has launched a public campaign of criticism against the Government of Zambia for what he dramatically characterizes as an “expulsion” of Bishop John Mambo from the ZCCM-IH board.

To be clear, Bishop Mambo’s tenure ended naturally after three years. It was not a dismissal, nor was it a punitive measure. The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC)—which holds a majority stake in ZCCM-IH and is chaired by the Head of State—simply chose not to renew his mandate, as is customary in corporate governance worldwide.

Yet Mr. Charles’ reaction has been anything but measured. In his latest open letter, he paints Zambia as an ungovernable and opaque state now slipping into “darkness” because of one expired board appointment. His rhetoric is neither constructive nor informed.

Instead, it reveals something more dangerous: a lingering colonial mentality, where foreigners—especially those from Western nations—believe they possess an inherent right to dictate the policies, personnel, and politics of independent African states.

Mr. Charles presents himself as a courageous whistleblower defending transparency and the interests of the Zambian people. But such posturing collapses under scrutiny.

As part of a minority shareholding group of around 6% in ZCCM-IH, he does not, in any legal or moral sense, speak for Zambia. The company is majority-owned by the Zambian government, and by extension, the Zambian people. Decisions on board composition and direction are the sovereign prerogative of the state and its designated institutions.

The reality is that Charles’ outbursts have nothing to do with good governance. They are the reaction of a disgruntled investor who may have lost some influence. His reaction is reminiscent of the white savior complex, where individuals from the West presume that their presence in African affairs is inherently noble or necessary. It is not. Africans are not voiceless. We are not rudderless.

We have fought hard for self-rule, and we will not barter it away for foreign capital or hollow activism.

The most alarming element of Thierry Charles’ behavior is its disregard for national sovereignty. Zambia is a constitutional democracy, governed by a rule of law that respects human rights, legal contracts, and corporate governance.

The President, in his capacity as IDC Chair, has every legal right to determine the composition of parastatal boards. This is not unique to Zambia. It happens in South Africa, France, Germany, and Japan. No nation submits boardroom decisions to minority shareholders for approval. The very suggestion that Zambia should do so is offensive and paternalistic.

To portray a routine non-renewal of tenure as a national crisis is disingenuous. Worse still, Mr. Charles’ repeated publication of alarmist letters in international forums is clearly designed to sabotage Zambia’s investment reputation, and could easily be interpreted as a form of economic subversion.

*When a shareholder begins to interfere in governance matters with the aim of exerting public pressure, the issue moves from the realm of corporate engagement to one of geopolitical interference.*

Let us be unequivocal: Zambia welcomes foreign investment. The country has long championed liberal economic policies, investment protections, and joint ventures in sectors ranging from energy to mining. But investment does not confer political power. Shareholding does not grant governance authority. Zambia is not for sale, nor is its sovereignty negotiable.

Foreign investors are invited to be partners, not masters. Their role is to invest capital, contribute technical expertise, and derive mutual benefit through respectful engagement with local laws, norms, and leadership. What Zambia will not accept—what no self-respecting nation should accept—is a scenario where a foreign minority shareholder publicly blackmails the state over internal appointments and policy directions.

If Mr. Charles is genuinely unhappy with the manner in which Zambia exercises its sovereign powers, he is free to exit. No investor is indispensable. His par of the 6% minority stake can be bought out by Zambians or other respectable institutions with a deeper understanding of responsible partnership.

*It is difficult to imagine a Zambian investor, holding minority shares in a French state-linked enterprise, publicly attacking President Emmanuel Macron over board appointments. Such behavior would be met with swift legal and diplomatic response.* Why then, should Zambia be subjected to such indignity?

This is the invisible hand of modern imperialism—not through tanks and gunboats, but through economic intimidation, media manipulation, and exaggerated narratives that seek to weaken African autonomy.

*We must call it what it is: neo-colonial overreach cloaked in the language of corporate concern.*

It is high time African states unite around a doctrine of investment dignity—one that protects national interests without discouraging capital inflow. Zambia is not an unstable dictatorship. It is a stable, multi-party democracy with an active civil society, independent judiciary, and robust press.

It does not need lectures from opportunistic shareholders who blur the line between partnership and provocation.

Zambia’s institutions must not be swayed by foreign pressure masquerading as shareholder activism. They must uphold thier sovereignty, defend thier national image, and refuse to be drawn into the dramas of discontented foreign investors with imperial delusions.

*The international community, particularly France and its diplomatic mission in Lusaka, must rein in Mr. Thierry Charles before his reckless statements escalate into a diplomatic embarrassment.* Zambia does not owe him deference. If anything, he owes the country an apology for attempting to undermine the very principles of governance he claims to defend.

This episode should serve as a warning to other investors: Zambia is open for business, but not open for bullying. Partnership must come with respect, or not at all.