Mining ZimbabweLatest Mining News, Policy and Industry Updates

I have always been a journalist who moves in the bushes. Sometimes I do it on weekends to refresh, to see beyond paper and pen, to learn, to know, to understand.

By Rudairo Mapuranga

This time, I went to Mtoko.

The dust hits you first. Then the sound, the relentless chatter of compressors, the crack of jackhammers against ancient rock. Mining is taking place here. Men and women, covered in earth, are digging, blasting, crushing, and panning. It is a scene repeated across Zimbabwe, where artisanal and small-scale miners now account for more than 70 percent of national gold output.

But as I watched, I began to notice something.

The gold they were pulling from the ground was not all going where you might expect. Some of it was making its way to Fidelity Gold Refinery, just enough, I would later learn, to keep the authorities satisfied. But the rest? That was going somewhere else.

The sponsors

I sat with them under the shade of a msasa tree, the dust settling on their overalls. They had been working since sunrise, and their hands still bore the stains of the red Mtoko earth.

A miner pointed to the equipment around us – compressors, jackhammers, explosives.

“This is not ours,” he said. “This belongs to the sponsors.”

I asked him who these sponsors were.

He shrugged. “They come. They see what we are doing. They do a bit of research, chikorokoza-type exploration, and then they start putting in capital.”

Not much, he explained. Sometimes not more than US$2,000. And things start to happen.

The economics of survival

They do not need much, he told me. Food. A compressor. A jackhammer. Maybe personal protective equipment. The sponsors provide all of this, and they wait. Sometimes it takes time for the gold to come. The sponsors are patient.

In return, they buy all the gold produced. At a price they set. And they share.

“They are not lenders,” he said, pointing a finger at me for emphasis. “They are partners in the project.”

As I listened, I began to piece together the economics of it all. The sponsors fund exploration, provide working capital, supply equipment. The miners provide the labour, the knowledge of the ground, and the sweat. When the gold comes, they split it, but the sponsors control the price, and they control where it goes.

The Fidelity balancing act

I asked about Fidelity Gold Refinery.

They looked at each other.

The police visits had changed things, they told me. The authorities wanted to see the books. They wanted to know where the gold was going. So now they do the thing, they take some grams to Fidelity. Just enough to balance the books. Just enough to show compliance.

I asked one of them quietly, away from the others: “The sponsors, do they take the gold to Fidelity?”

He lowered his voice. “Some days, maybe. But not all of it. It’s a ring.”

I took note. It was an observation I would investigate later.

The model that works

What struck me most was not the smuggling; it was the sophistication of the sponsor model. These sponsors were not simply buying gold. They were investing in exploration, funding operations, providing equipment, and managing logistics. They were, in effect, acting as junior mining companies, operating entirely in the shadows.

The miners I spoke with saw the logic of it.

“We are here because of the sponsors. We mine because of their money. Without them, the gold is not there.”

But they also saw the limitations. They were selling their gold at prices set by others. They had no access to formal financing and no formal title to the ground they were mining. They were producing national wealth, but they were not fully benefiting from it.

A better way

I brought up the Magaya Mining model, the partnership between Mutapa Gold Resources and the Chekutu-based company that has created a consolidated mining framework, a one-stop shop where everything is done under one roof. It was my observation that this model could be applied more widely.

They had heard of it.

“We have seen what Mutapa Gold is doing,” one of them said. “Can we take it more to the sponsors’ model?”

He was not asking for a handout. He was asking for a better business model.

“The banks, yes, they can be formal, but not too formal,” he said. “The sponsors’ model works. Do a bit of exploration. Fund the operation. Buy the gold. All the gold is yours to buy at a price you set. And you share.”

I asked him why the government couldn’t do what the sponsors were doing.

“They can,” he said. “Even better. More formally. More precisely.”

His eyes searched mine.

“If they don’t trust us, they can understudy what the sponsors are doing. They are not running out of business.”

The will to invest

What was missing, he told me, was the will. The sponsors saw the opportunity and seized it. They took risks. They invested. They built relationships.

“The government can do that too,” he said. “They have the resources. They have the expertise. They just need to want to do it.”

I asked him what he would change if he could.

“Everything,” he said. “We need a better business model. We think the government can bring that. We want to deal with government directly.”

A gold future

As I walked away from the msasa tree, I thought about what I had seen. Here were men and women, thousands of them across this country, producing more than 60 per cent of Zimbabwe’s gold. They were doing it with little more than compressors, jackhammers, and the support of shadowy sponsors who operate in the grey spaces of the economy.

They want to come into the light. They have seen the Magaya model. They know the government can replicate the sponsor model, but do it better, do it formally, and do it transparently.

A ray of hope

As I packed my notebook, one of the miners caught my eye.

“Nyika inovakwa nevene vayo,” he said with a knowing smile. “A country is built by its own people. Let us build it together.”

He was not asking for charity. He was asking for a partnership.

The gold might be going anywhere now. But these miners want it to go somewhere specific: into the formal economy, into the national fiscus, into a system that benefits everyone.

They just need the will.

And I left the dust of Mtoko behind, carrying their words with me, wondering if anyone in the corridors of power was listening.

The Constitutional Court has upheld a High Court ruling declaring Section 28(2) of the Reconstruction of State-Indebted Insolvent Companies Act unconstitutional, clearing the way for 27 former Shabanie Mashava Mines (SMM) employees to pursue terminal benefits withheld for nearly 15 years, Mining Zimbabwe can report.

By Ryan Chigoche

The decision confirms that the provision unlawfully curtailed labour protections for employees of companies placed under reconstruction by preventing them from enforcing claims for benefits despite the employer acknowledging its indebtedness.

The application was brought by former SMM employee Josephat Gwatida and 26 others against the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Attorney General, with Shabanie Mashava Mines cited as the third respondent. The Constitutional Court upheld a February 2025 High Court judgment delivered by Justice Sunsley Zisengwe, which found the provision inconsistent with the Constitution.

While suspending the declaration of constitutional invalidity for 180 days to allow the responsible minister to amend the legislation, the apex court ruled that workers’ constitutional rights cannot be restricted indefinitely simply because a company remains under reconstruction.

The judgment also brings renewed attention to the prolonged collapse of Shabanie Mashava Mines, once Zimbabwe’s sole asbestos producer and one of Africa’s largest chrysotile asbestos mining companies. Before financial difficulties forced the company into reconstruction in 2004, SMM employed more than 5,000 workers and formed the economic backbone of Zvishavane and Mashava.

Although successive administrations have announced plans to revive the mining giant, including proposals to attract investors, dewater underground workings and restart operations, the company has not returned to sustained commercial production. Earlier this year, the Government placed SMM under a fresh 24-month reconstruction order and appointed a new administrator in another attempt to revive the operation, while thousands of former employees continue to pursue unpaid salaries, pensions and terminal benefits accumulated over the years.

The dispute before the courts arose after the applicants’ employment was terminated in October 2011. Although SMM acknowledged owing them terminal benefits, the former workers were unable to pursue payment because Section 6(b) of the Reconstruction Act required them to obtain the reconstruction administrator’s permission before instituting legal proceedings against the company.

According to court papers, the workers submitted a written request seeking that approval but received no response, effectively leaving their claims in legal limbo as the reconstruction process continued without any statutory deadline.

In challenging Section 28(2), the applicants argued that the provision violated their constitutional rights to fair labour practices under Section 65(1) and equality before the law under Section 56(1) by indefinitely suspending protections available under the Labour Act.

Justice Zisengwe agreed, ruling that the provision imposed an unfair, unreasonable and unjustifiable limitation on workers’ constitutional rights. The High Court also noted that, unlike Zimbabwe’s Insolvency Act, which provides clear mechanisms and timelines for settling employees’ claims, the Reconstruction Act contained no comparable safeguards for workers whose employers remained under reconstruction.

The Constitutional Court, comprising Chief Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza and Justices Paddington Garwe, Annie Gowora, Ben Hlatshwayo, Bharat Patel, Susan Mavangira and Nicholas Mathonsi, unanimously upheld that reasoning.

The ruling is expected to have implications beyond Shabanie Mashava Mines, strengthening legal protections for employees of companies placed under reconstruction by affirming that prolonged corporate restructuring cannot be used to indefinitely delay or deny workers access to statutory employment benefits.

When some South Africans speak about Zimbabwe, the narrative is often one of a failed state that offers nothing but desperate migrants and economic chaos. But the trade and mining data tell a dramatically different story, one in which South Africa extracts billions of dollars from Zimbabwe’s mining sector while offering comparatively little in return.

By Rudairo Mapuranga

This article examines the deeply one-sided economic relationship between the two neighbours, focusing on how South African companies, suppliers, and service providers capture the lion’s share of value from Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: A US$3.8 Billion (R62.4 billion) Import Bill

In 2025 alone, Zimbabwe imported goods worth US$3.804 billion (R62.4 billion) from South Africa, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database via Trade Map. This represents a steady increase from US$3.697 billion (R60.75 billion) in 2024 and US$3.499 billion in 2023.

To put this in perspective, Zimbabwe imports roughly US$7 from South Africa for every US$1 it exports to South Africa. South Africa’s imports from Zimbabwe in 2025 stood at just US$526.42 million (R8.66 billion), according to UN COMTRADE data.

South Africa is the largest source of Zimbabwe’s imports, consistently accounting for 34.5% to 38.8% of Zimbabwe’s total monthly imports throughout 2025. In December 2025, South Africa supplied 38.8% of Zimbabwe’s imports, while China followed with just 15.5% and Bahrain with 13.5%. China, the second-largest source, supplies less than half of what South Africa does.

For the first seven months of 2025 alone, imports from South Africa dropped by over 6% to around US$2 billion (R32.87 billion), down from more than US$2.3 billion (R37.8 billion) during the same period in 2024, a reduction of more than US$140 million (R2.3 billion) as Zimbabwe’s manufacturing industry began to rebound. Despite this decline, South Africa remains Zimbabwe’s largest trading partner in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

The key mining-related imports from South Africa in 2025 included machinery and mechanical appliances valued at US$526.57 million (R8.65 billion), mineral fuels and oils at US$252.51 million (R4.15 billion), and cereals at US$506.93 million (R8.33 billion). Machinery maintained its dominance among imports from South Africa, reflecting the mining sector’s continued reliance on South African equipment.

The Mining Sector: Where the Real Money Flows

According to the Zimbabwe Embassy, approximately US$2.1 billion (R34.5 billion) of the mining sector’s US$5.4 billion (R88.76 billion) revenue is spent on imported machinery, equipment, and services, mainly from South Africa. An Afreximbank report further revealed that 80% of Zimbabwe’s intra-African mining-related imports, totalling US$4.7 billion (R77.25 billion), originate from South Africa.

Yet Zimbabwe’s local manufacturing sector contributes only about 15% of the mining industry’s requirements. The remaining US$2.1 billion (R34.5 billion) in sector revenue leaves the country, much of it flowing directly into South African pockets.

South African Ownership of Zimbabwe’s PGM Sector

Zimbabwe holds the world’s third-largest platinum group metals (PGM) resource along the mineral-rich Great Dyke, after South Africa and Russia. Yet all three of the country’s operating PGM mines are majority-owned by South African companies.

Zimplats, Zimbabwe’s largest platinum producer, is 87% owned by South Africa’s Impala Platinum Holdings (Implats). In FY2025, Zimplats’ 6E production in matte fell by 6% to 606,300 ounces, down from 645,900 ounces in FY2024, driven primarily by poor fleet performance and the lock-up of concentrates during the commissioning of its expanded smelter complex. Despite the short-term decline, the smelter expansion represents a significant long-term investment in beneficiation and value addition in Zimbabwe, although the expanded smelter is expected to reduce reliance on toll treatment in South Africa over time.

Mimosa Mining Company is jointly owned by two South African giants, Impala Platinum (50%) and Sibanye-Stillwater (50%). In FY2025, Mimosa produced 253,900 ounces of 6E concentrate, a slight 1% decline from 255,400 ounces in FY2024. The dip was driven primarily by intermittent regional power disruptions that impacted plant throughput and recovery efficiency. The mine employs more than 1,400 workers directly and supports thousands more indirectly through supply chains.

Unki Platinum Mine is wholly owned by South African-headquartered Valterra Platinum (formerly Anglo American Platinum). Unki produced 219,700 ounces of PGM concentrate in 2025, representing approximately 7% of the group’s total concentrate output. However, the mine recorded an 8% year-on-year decline in production during Q3 2025, producing 57,500 ounces compared to 62,500 ounces in the same period of 2024, primarily due to lower ore grades.

Tharisa’s Karo Platinum Project is also setting up and is expected to be in production in the second half of 2027.

Overall, Zimbabwe’s platinum production is projected to have declined by approximately 4% in 2025 to 491,000 ounces, retreating from the record levels achieved in 2024, according to the World Platinum Investment Council.

It’s not just platinum but Gold too!

Namib Minerals, founded by South African mogul Mzi Khumalo, owns multiple gold mines in Zimbabwe, namely How Mine, Mazowe Mine (Jumbo) and Redwing Mine.

Currently, How Mine is the fourth-largest gold-producing mine in Zimbabwe after Freda Rebecca, Blanket Mine, and Eureka gold mines. With the addition of Redwing Mine and Mazowe Mine, Namib Minerals has the potential to become Zimbabwe’s largest gold producer if all its mining operations are successfully revived and brought back to full production.

South African-headquartered companies such as Caledonia Mining extract gold from Zimbabwe while basing their management and decision-making in Johannesburg.

Not to mention South Africans who are trading in the Chrome mining industry.

Jobs Exported: Where the Refining Happens

Beyond equipment and consumables, South Africa also captures the high-value refining and beneficiation jobs.

Zimplats dispatches its matte to Impala’s refinery in Springs, South Africa, under a life-of-mine agreement with Impala Refining Services. The expanded smelter at Zimplats produces matte that is transported to South Africa for refining.

The refinery jobs, tax revenues, and value addition, the highest-value stages of the mining value chain, accrue to South Africa, not Zimbabwe. While Zimplats’ US$398 million smelter expansion project is a step toward local beneficiation, the vast majority of Zimbabwe’s PGM output is still processed outside the country.

Another South African Export to Zimbabwe’s Mines

Zimbabwe’s mining sector is heavily reliant on imported electricity, and South Africa’s Eskom remains a major supplier.

In the first quarter of 2025, Zimbabwe’s electricity imports declined by 37.4% to 305.5 GWh, down from 487.8 GWh in the previous quarter, driven by strong domestic generation. However, the import breakdown shows that 34% of the electricity still came from South Africa’s Eskom, while Mozambique’s HCB and EDM supplied 37.5% and 10.2%, respectively.

Overall, Zimbabwe spent US$117 million (R1.92 billion) on electricity imports in 2025, the lowest full-year figure in five years by a considerable margin. However, every kilowatt-hour powering Zimbabwe’s mines still represents another revenue stream for South Africa.

The Narrative That Needs to Change

The perception that South Africa “gets nothing” from Zimbabwe is not just false, it is dangerously misleading.

South African companies own Zimbabwe’s three PGM mines (Zimplats, Mimosa, and Unki). South African suppliers capture 80% of Zimbabwe’s mining-related imports. South African refineries process Zimbabwe’s minerals, generating jobs in that country. South African banks and shareholders receive the dividends.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwe’s manufacturing capacity utilisation stands at just 56.2%, far below the mining sector’s 81%–84% capacity. The gap between what Zimbabwe could produce locally and what it imports from South Africa represents billions, lost jobs, lost industrialisation, and lost economic sovereignty.

South Africa enforces a strong local content strategy, requiring at least 70% of mining goods and 80% of services to be sourced locally. Zimbabwe approved its Local Content Strategy in 2019 with ambitious targets, but as of 2025, only 15% of the mining sector’s requirements are met by local manufacturers.

Zimbabwe’s mining sector continues to grow, but if the supply chains continue to flow to South Africa, the benefits will continue to leak across the border.

When South Africans question what Zimbabwe contributes, the answer is clear:

Zimbabwe contributes billions of dollars annually to the South African economy through mining imports, equipment purchases, refinery throughput, electricity sales, and shareholder dividends. That is equal to much-needed jobs, jobs, jobs.

The question is not whether South Africa benefits from Zimbabwe.

The question is whether Zimbabwe will ever benefit as much from its own minerals as South Africa does.

EXPLORATION is the lifeblood of the mining industry, yet securing funding for it remains an uphill battle, not because the value isn’t there, but because it is often hidden, requiring years of patience before returns materialise, a seasoned exploration geologist said.

By Rudairo Mapuranga

Speaking at the Chamber of Mines Annual Conference Gold Symposium, sponsored by Mutapa Gold Resources, Geoprobe Advisory Services Managing Geologist Kuda Muchenje drew on his decades of experience, having worked on both sides of the fence as an exploration geologist and as a business development professional assessing projects for potential investment, to make a compelling case for why exploration deserves a seat at the funding table.

“Exploration expenditure causes heated debates when you ask for exploration funds in boardrooms. There are always people who support exploration, and there are always people who are opposed to spending that money,” Muchenje said.

“That is largely because exploration is quite expensive, and because exploration is so expensive, it tends to be very difficult to actually raise the funding.”

The Exploration Value Chain

Muchenje positioned exploration at the very front end of the mining value chain — the entire process from the discovery of mineral deposits all the way to mining, processing, and getting the product to market.

“Without exploration, there’s no mining; there are no new mines that are going to be found,” he said.

He distinguished between greenfield exploration, starting from nothing to find a new deposit — and brownfield exploration, which occurs around operating mines to extend their lives. His presentation was particularly focused on the small-scale investor “who’s taking money out of his pocket and trying to find a new mineral deposit.”

Success Stories That Prove the Case

Muchenje pointed to Zimbabwe’s own track record of exploration success, citing the Murowa diamond mine and the Marange diamond fields as examples of greenfield exploration programmes that delivered results.

“I was involved with the exploration programme that led to the Murowa diamond mine, and there was nothing there before. Eventually, the exploration work discovered a new mine,” he revealed. The Murowa discovery resulted from a four-year regional exploration programme by a Rio Tinto Exploration joint venture, with three diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes discovered in 1997.

“Same thing with Marange,” he said. Diamonds in Marange were discovered in 2002.

At a national level, he noted, operating mines discovered through exploration make “a meaningful contribution to the fiscus, through taxes paid by these mining companies, jobs that are created, and dividends that are paid out to shareholders.”

Internationally, Muchenje cited Robert Friedland, who made a fortune by finding world-class deposits, including the Voisey’s Bay nickel deposit in Canada, which was sold for US$3.1 billion in 1996.

Why Funding Remains Elusive

“If there are so many success stories related to exploration, why is it so difficult to raise money?” Muchenje asked.

His answer: “Exploration value is often hidden. It’s not obvious. You’re not going to put a dollar in today and have $10 a week later.”

“Exploration is a process that takes years, and it can take five years of exploration, seven years of exploration, before all your effort actually pays back,” he said. “That is why a lot of people struggle to understand the value that comes out of exploration, and that is why a lot of people get scared and stay away.”

De-risking and Value Creation

Muchenje described exploration as a “de-risking exercise”, a balance between reducing risk at each stage and creating value in the long run.

“You only proceed if you get acceptable results at stage one before you then proceed to stage two,” he explained. “As the exploration process continues, the risks should fall, and value should rise.”

However, he cautioned that value creation is “not a straightforward upward trajectory.”

“The greatest value at the beginning is typically created when you find something, when you have declared a mineral discovery. But after that, the value actually tends to fall because reality sets in.”

The feasibility study stage, Muchenje noted, is particularly challenging to fund.

“Your banks are not going to give you money to do a feasibility study. The bank wants that feasibility study when you apply for funds for mining.”

“The greatest value is then reached when that project gets into production, and it starts paying dividends.”

Principles for Increasing Exploration Value

Muchenje offered practical advice for explorers, particularly smaller investors with limited budgets.

“Stay within known mineral provinces. Your chances of finding a new deposit are actually better if you stay within known mineral provinces,” he said. “In Zimbabwe, we have very well-established mineral provinces — the Greenstone Belts for gold and the Great Dyke for PGMs.”

He cited the Dokwe Gold Project as an example of explorers who ventured into uncharted territory and succeeded.

“Dokwe is a classic example of guys who were brave enough to go and look for gold under the Kalahari sands, and they made a stunning discovery,” he said. “To me, one of the best discoveries ever made in this country. It’s a fascinating project.”

Quality Over Quantity

Perhaps Muchenje’s most pointed advice was on the quality of exploration data.

“The quality of information that you generate is probably one of the most important things,” he stressed. “You can spend a lot of money on percussion drilling, but when the valuers come to look at your project, they’re going to say, ‘But this information is useless to us.'”

He also emphasised the importance of QA/QC procedures.

“A lot of people spend thousands and thousands of dollars on laboratory assays, which do not have QA/QC procedures. That information is heavily discredited when it comes to the evaluation of mineral projects.”

“It is very important that you not only generate quantities of exploration data, but that quality is also quite critical.”

Government’s Role

Muchenje called on the government to create an enabling environment and protect exploration investment. He singled out national data management as “one of the most critical roles.”

“Making data available online is now very critical. It makes you a very competitive country,” he said. “A lot of countries are even making this data free now. You don’t have to pay for anything. You just go to a government portal and get all the geophysics and geology maps that you need.”

The Artisanal Miner as an Exploration Tool

In a striking acknowledgement, Muchenje paid tribute to artisanal miners.

“As a geologist, I’m forced to acknowledge that the artisanal miner is probably the most effective exploration tool that we have. Those guys have found so many deposits,” he said.

“The question is, what are we going to do with the information that is generated from all the work done by the artisanal miners?”

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the search for mineral deposits, offering African countries an opportunity to accelerate discoveries and compete more effectively for global exploration capital, Ghana Chamber of Mines Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Ashigbey said.

By Ryan Chigoche

Addressing delegates at the Chamber of Mines of Zimbabwe annual conference, Ashigbey said the industry is entering a new era where data, predictive analytics, and digital technologies will increasingly determine where the next generation of mineral discoveries is made.

“The mining industry of the future will belong not only to those with the largest mineral deposits, but also to those who deploy technology most effectively to optimise mineral resource discovery, extraction, and efficient recovery,” Ashigbey said.

The shift comes as African governments compete to attract investment into critical minerals needed for the global energy transition. Although the continent holds about 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, it attracts less than 15% of global exploration spending, highlighting both the scale of its untapped geological potential and the challenge of securing exploration capital.

Ashigbey argued that reversing that trend begins with exploration, describing it as the foundation of a sustainable mining industry.

“Exploration is the oxygen of mining. Without exploration, reserves decline. Without reserves, investment dries up. Without investment, the industry stagnates.”

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing that equation. By analysing vast geological datasets in a fraction of the time required by conventional methods, AI allows exploration companies to identify promising mineral targets more quickly, reduce drilling risk, and lower the cost of discovery. Technologies such as machine learning, geospatial analytics, drone mapping, and predictive modelling are already transforming how exploration programmes are planned and executed.

For Africa, however, the opportunity extends beyond simply adopting these technologies. Ashigbey urged governments, universities, mining companies, and technology firms to work together to develop AI solutions tailored to African geology and operating conditions.

“Africa must not be merely a consumer of these technologies,” he said. “We must become creators of them.”

Drawing on his background in telecommunications, Ashigbey said digital capability is becoming as important to mining competitiveness as traditional infrastructure. Data, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence, he argued, are now central to the industry’s future, with digital tools already helping to detect illegal mining, improve mineral traceability, strengthen environmental monitoring, and support more efficient exploration.

Even so, technology cannot replace sound mining policy.

Countries seeking exploration investment must still provide transparent licensing systems, secure mineral tenure, reliable geological data, and predictable regulation. Combined with advances in artificial intelligence, those fundamentals can reduce investment risk and improve the chances of new discoveries.