A skilled Zimbabwean rig operator is locked in a dispute with China Jiangxi International, a Chinese drilling company, over an unpaid terminal benefits package allegedly promised upon his dismissal, Mining Zimbabwe can reveal.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
Obert Mufudza, whose employment with the company dates back to 2019, was dismissed on 2 September 2025. He alleges that the company agreed to a US$1,500 settlement covering his back pay and other entitlements, but has since failed to honour the agreement. When confronted with detailed questions, the company’s Human Resources department allegedly became confrontational and refused to provide any answers.
The case places a spotlight on the labour practices of some Chinese contractors in Zimbabwe’s critical mining sector and tests the enforcement of the country’s labour laws against well-resourced foreign entities.
According to Mufudza, his working relationship with China Jiangxi International began on 17 October 2019. He states that he worked for months without a formal contract—a period during which he was already operating complex and high-risk drilling rigs—before finally signing a short-term contract in 2020.
After a period of interrupted work, he was recalled in August 2024 and worked consistently until his dismissal on 2 September 2025. It was at this point, Mufudza says, that the company made a firm financial commitment.
“When they terminated my employment, they said they would give me all my money, notes, pay leave, and a package. They said they would give me $1,500, which they said was my money for all this time,” Mufudza stated.
This promise, he claims, has not been fulfilled. “Now they don’t want to give it to me; they are just procrastinating. They even said I would get it by the end of last month, but nothing came,” he added.
Mining Zimbabwe sent a detailed list of questions to China Jiangxi International’s HR department, seeking their account of the dismissal and the alleged broken settlement agreement.
After receiving no formal reply, a follow-up call was made. An HR representative confirmed that the inquiry had been “forwarded to his superior” but offered no timeline for a response. When the journalist noted that this lack of feedback left the public “in the dark,” the representative allegedly became abrupt and ended the conversation without any commitment to address the allegations.
This refusal to engage suggests a lack of accountability and leaves the claims made by Mr Mufudza unchallenged.
The role of a rig operator is highly skilled and safety-critical, involving the operation of heavy machinery essential for mineral exploration. The alleged initial lack of a formal contract for such a position raises significant questions about the company’s adherence to standard labour and safety protocols during that period.
The company’s alleged conduct appears to run counter to evolving labour standards, even within China itself. Recent legal developments in China show a push toward stronger worker protections. A new Judicial Interpretation from China’s Supreme People’s Court, effective September 2025, emphasises the importance of stable employment and clarifies employer liabilities, including double wage penalties for failure to sign a written labour contract in certain circumstances.
Furthermore, while China promotes a positive image in Zimbabwe through aid projects such as borehole drilling, disputes like Mr Mufudza’s may undermine that goodwill and fuel perceptions of unfair labour practices by its corporations overseas.
The standoff between Obert Mufudza and China Jiangxi International is more than a personal dispute—it is a test case for corporate accountability. It challenges whether Zimbabwean labour rights can be enforced against international players who choose to ignore them.
For now, the only response from China Jiangxi International is silence—a strategy that speaks volumes and leaves the public to draw its own conclusions.
