THE Minerals Regulation Commission’s announcement that it has considered 823 mining-right applications in two weeks is, on the face of it, encouraging. A backlog of 1,672 applications cannot be allowed to frustrate legitimate investors, artisanal miners and cooperatives. Clearing it efficiently is necessary, and the reported participation of women in artisanal mining deserves recognition.
But the Commission must not confuse movement in the licensing office with progress in the mining sector. Issuing licences is only one part of its mandate. The real test is what those licences return to our heavily exploited country.
According to the Minerals Regulation Commission Act, the MRC is expected to regulate and monitor mining operations, ensure optimal utilisation of mineral resources, enforce compliance with mining laws, monitor mineral marketing and, working with other State institutions, prevent illegal mining, mineral smuggling and tax evasion. This mandate, when unpacked placed a huge task on the Commission to resolve pretty much all the inherent problems in the sector.
For every licence approved, Zambians are entitled to ask: has the holder commenced the promised exploration or mining programme? How much has been invested? How many jobs have been created? What minerals are being produced and sold? What taxes and royalties are being paid? How much value is being retained locally? Is the licence active, dormant, speculative or being traded behind closed doors?
These questions must be answered urgently along with the Zambia Revenue Authority’s disclosure that about 10 mines accounted for 80 percent of mining-sector revenue last year, despite a database of more than 2,000 mining licence holders.
We appreciate that not every licence holder is a producing mine. Some hold exploration rights, others may be developing projects, while artisanal operators cannot be compared with giant copper producers. Nevertheless, the concentration is too severe to be dismissed with those qualifications. It suggests that Zambia has thousands of rights on paper, but very few operators making a meaningful fiscal contribution.
What is the MRC’s explanation? How does the Commission feel about supervising a sector in which roughly 10 mines carry almost the entire tax burden? Of the more than 2,000 licence holders, how many are producing, exporting, filing mineral royalty returns and holding valid tax-clearance certificates? How many are dormant? How many have breached their approved work programmes? How many licences have been suspended or revoked for non-performance?
The Commission cannot simply say taxation belongs to ZRA. Its own Act expressly requires it to collaborate with other government authorities in preventing tax evasion. It also regulates production, mineral marketing, trading and exports; the very information necessary to establish whether the Treasury is receiving what it is owed.
In our view, the MRC should be compelled to publish an annual licence-performance report, linking each category of mining right to operational status, declared production, exports, jobs, royalties and tax compliance. Confidential commercial information can be protected, but aggregate accountability cannot be avoided.
The same transparency is required over local content. Statutory Instrument No. 68 of 2025 requires mining and mining-related companies to reserve an initial 20 percent of annual core procurement budgets for qualifying local companies and gives technically compliant local bids a 15 percent price preference.
This law was celebrated as a turning point for Zambian suppliers. But legislation is not empowerment until contracts change hands, businesses grow, jobs are created and money circulates within Zambia.
Can the MRC, together with the ministries and agencies responsible for implementation, publish a report showing each mine’s annual core procurement budget, the amount reserved for local suppliers, contracts awarded, goods and services procured, and the names and ownership structures of beneficiaries? Which mines have complied, which have failed, and what enforcement action has followed?
There is also a serious concern among suppliers that some companies presented as local are merely fronts for foreign interests. Is this true? Are foreign-owned suppliers using Zambian nominees, superficial shareholding arrangements or politically connected intermediaries to capture benefits intended for citizens?
The Commission should not answer this through assurances. We expect that it should verify beneficial ownership with PACRA, tax records with ZRA and citizen-ownership status with the Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission. A company should not qualify as local merely because it has a Zambian address, registration certificate or convenient minority shareholder.
Do you agree that child defilers should be castrated?
Total Votes: 756
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
23 Parirenyatwa Road
Rhodes Park
P.O. Box 32147
Lusaka, Zambia
Telephone or WhatsApp:
+26-097-7708285
+26-095-3424603
+26-096-5815078
Email:
diggers [at] diggers [dot] news
editor [at] diggers [dot] news
