Zimbabwe Development
Needs To Be Watched Closely



Dear E-Mail Extra Subscriber
Here at The Hunting Report, as conditions in Zimbabwe have continued to deteriorate in recent years, we have remained supportive of that nation's hunting programs for the simple reason that hunting revenue is essential to the survival of wildlife there. Stop the flow of hunting revenue into Zimbabwe, it seems to us, and the entire infrastructure of conservation is going to collapse.

That does not mean we have been comfortable supporting the flow of dollars into a regime as corrupt as Robert Mugabe's. It means simply that we think continuing to hunt there and continuing to support the wildlife conservation infrastructure of Zimbabwe is the lesser of two evils. Our awkward position can be pretty much summed up as - 'Hold your nose and go hunting.'

What occasions this re-statement of our position on Zimbabwe is our concern that the US government may be about to get serious about discouraging Americans from hunting there. Not only has the US State Department recently issued a new Travel Warning, but President George Bush has just issued a new Executive Order expanding the list of persons in Zimbabwe that Americans are forbidden to do business with. The new order increases the number of so-called banned individuals from 77 to 123.

We have told you before about this banned list and warned you that the prudent thing to do before you hunt in Zimbabwe is to ask your intended outfitter if he has business ties with a banned individual and, if not, to then insist that he send you a statement to that effect. The wisdom of doing that is pointed up by a brouhaha that has erupted over HHK Safaris' business ties to a banned individual by the name of Webster Shamu, Mugabe's Minister of Policy Implementation. Shamu owns a safari company called Famba Safaris that, among other things, controls the hunting rights on Chirisa. HHK on its web site lists Famba as one of the safari companies it has "incorporated" into its business.

It is not clear how word of all this got out, but it is indeed out there in the form of newspaper headlines, not just in Zimbabwe but in England as well. What has given the story greater impetus is the fact that HHK's Charles Davy is the father of Prince Harry's girl friend. Prince Harry is third in the line of succession to the throne in England. The English press has been having a field day writing about the Prince being involved with the offspring of a Zimbabwean "sanctions buster."

You can rest assured US Embassy officials in Harare have been reading about this imbroglio and sending messages back to the US Treasury Department, which administers the Zimbabwe Sanctions through its office of Foreign Assets Control. The hoopla has created a lot of internet chatter about the possible imposition of fines against Americans who hunted with HHK last year.

At this point we need to point out that we have not been given any indication that Americans are about to be fined for hunting with HHK or with any other company in Zimbabwe. All we are pointing out is, this story is out there, it's creating waves, it's driving home the point that Americans have been hunting with a company that had business ties to a banned individual. The whole matter bears watching.

As this is written, we have tried to reach HHK safaris to get a clarifying statement, but no one was available to speak with us at the number we called. We have heard that HHK has severed ties with Shamu, but we cannot confirm that. We have also heard that HHK has changed hands completely in recent weeks, but again we cannot confirm that. For certain we are going to look into all this much more deeply in coming weeks with an eye toward having a clear recommendation on Zimbabwe in place by the time the major hunting conventions take place. Stay tuned…. - Don Causey, Editor/Publisher.

(Postscript: As this bulletin was being finalized, Molly Millerwise of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control sent us the following statement regarding Americans dealing with Specially Designated Nationals - e.g, those whose names appear on the banned list: "Under Executive Order 13288, as amended, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transactions with Specially Designated Nationals (SDN). Additionally, U.S. persons should not transact with individuals and entities, if the U.S. persons know, or have reasonable cause to believe, that the transaction involves property in which an SDN has an interest, or that the persons with whom they are transacting are acting for or on behalf of an SDN. In the case of safari tours, U.S. persons need to engage in due diligence to ensure:

1.) The safari company, hotel, etc. they will be working with is not an SDN, that it is not owned, controlled or managed by an SDN, and that no SDN has an interest in it.
2.) The safari company will not take the tourists to land, game parks, hotels, etc. that are themselves SDNs or in which SDNs have an interest.


U.S. persons that violate the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe are in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Violators may be subject to civil penalties up to $11,000 per violation and/or, for willful violations, criminal penalties, including jail time." - Molly Millerwise, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Dear Kathi

Please see my response to Don Causey, I will be happy if you can get this onto the Forum.

regards

Graham


+++++++++++++++++++++++


Dear Don

I have read your article posted in the hunting report and feel that you should check your facts before going to print.

For a start Mr. Webster Shamu is not a partner or shareholder in HHK Safaris and any person doing business with HHK Safaris is not in violation of the sanctions order.

Secondly Mr. Shamu does not share in any of the profits earned from hunting in the Chirisa Safari Area. Mr. Shamu is a part owner of Famba Safaris who holds the lease to Chirisa and he officially ceded these rights to HHK in 1999 a long time before any sanctions were imposed. He does not participate in the management, operation and profits from the hunting concession.

Thirdly Mr. Charles Davy is no longer a shareholder in HHK Safaris, I am the majority shareholder and I have a couple of other investors involved with me. HHK Safaris still has all its concessions and is as strong as ever.

I am leaving for Mozambique on holiday tomorrow so will be out of phone range but should still be able to check e-mails and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

regards

Graham Hingeston

I am quite surprised Don Causey had so much trouble getting a statement from Graham Hingeston or Charles Davy. I have clients booked with HHK and I asked Graham to comment on the situation and he responded immediately.

I am satisified with his response and know that my clients will be well taken care of and in store for outstanding safaris. I too will continue to hunt in Zimbabwe.

This isn't the first time that Don Causey's Hunting Report has been factually inaccurate about something of consequence. In the past he wrote that Out of Africa Safaris had been cleared of wrongdoing in Zim at a time when National Parks had banned OOA from hunting in Zim.

I don't know when the Hunting Report did their research, but I have been in touch with Graham Hingeston via email regularly over the last month or two.
- mike

quote:

(Postscript: As this bulletin was being finalized, Molly Millerwise of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control sent us the following statement regarding Americans dealing with Specially Designated Nationals - e.g, those whose names appear on the banned list: "Under Executive Order 13288, as amended, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transactions with Specially Designated Nationals (SDN). Additionally, U.S. persons should not transact with individuals and entities, if the U.S. persons know, or have reasonable cause to believe, that the transaction involves property in which an SDN has an interest, or that the persons with whom they are transacting are acting for or on behalf of an SDN. In the case of safari tours, U.S. persons need to engage in due diligence to ensure:

1.) The safari company, hotel, etc. they will be working with is not an SDN, that it is not owned, controlled or managed by an SDN, and that no SDN has an interest in it.
2.) The safari company will not take the tourists to land, game parks, hotels, etc. that are themselves SDNs or in which SDNs have an interest.


U.S. persons that violate the economic sanctions against Zimbabwe are in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Violators may be subject to civil penalties up to $11,000 per violation and/or, for willful violations, criminal penalties, including jail time." - Molly Millerwise, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

And just how does Ms. Millerstupid propose that "U.S. persons" find out yes or no for any given "Zimbabwe person"? I suggest that it is incumbent on the Treasury Department to provide an inclusive list of all individuals or entities with which US persons cannot engage in transactions.

Otherwise how can we know when due dilligence is in fact just that?

Right aftert defining what a "U.S. person" is of course.

jim

Just of pure interest, does anyone know why this very recent HHK (change or ownership structure) came about, what was the driving force behind the business changes, were they a political or business decision, and whom are the two new minority shareholders with the majority shareholder Mr. Hingeston

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Balla Balla:
Just of pure interest, does anyone know why this very recent HHK (change or ownership structure) came about, what was the driving force behind the business changes, were they a political or business decision, and whom are the two new minority shareholders with the majority shareholder Mr. Hingeston

Peter

Nothing wrong with HKK. Anyhow the well etablished and renown HHK is puzzling me for a while.
I have been told by serious people than a FRENCHMAN is (or had been) a shareholder, one in the initials HHK.
Any guess?

Perhaps unhealthy curiosity?

Steve told me who the original principals were in HHK, Graham Hingeston, one of the Hallomore's, and I forget who the "K" was, but remember it was a Zimbabwe Professional Hunter.

I take a rather different attitude to hunting in Zimbabwe.

To be able to hold on to concessions, and have access to many others, you MUST have political connections!

We might look at this with a negative attitude from the out side. But, what options do the people concerned have??

It is either toe the line, or loose everything!

Hingeston (for Graham Hingeston), Hallamore (for Lou Hallamore)
and Koch (for James Koch).
Were the three original shareholders in HHK.

I am with Dan on this one...Don Causey has a tendency to "create issues" and then "solve them" and the declare himself a hero...

In reading the State Departments position anyone hunting at Chirisa last year or this year may be in violation as Shamu has an interest in the hunting there. Shamu was on the banned list last year. It is now confirmed by HHK that he is part owner in Famba and they are the lease holder to Chirisa.

The sub lease on that piece wasnt given up for nothing in return.

I dont want to support any of Mugabes cronies when I hunt Zimbabwe. There are several good PH's that havent sold their souls to continue hunting.

If anyone has any information as to who controls what concessions that would be of interest to everyone here.

I have to agree with Saeed. it is a pretty well know thing that HHK's guys are all carrying uncle bobs cards with them

It is certainly everyones' right to select with whom they will hunt and to not hunt with others for whatever reason.

But don't go painting everyone with such a broad brush. It is pretty damn easy to set here and be critical of those trying to survive.

If you had lost one farm to Mugabe's boys and were living on another farm when the local Zanu-PF guy comes by for a "donation" what would you do? Remember, your wife and kids are living alone on this farm while your off being a PH. What do you do? Tell him to shove it?

Real easy to set here and be critical. If it offends you, then vote with your dollars and hunt somewhere else. But don't come across with a holier-than-though attitude. What would you do to protect your land, wife and kids?

Regards,

Terry

T Carr

I assume you are referring to my post. If you are, note that I said to support those PH's that havent sold their souls. Broad brush, dont think so.

There are several PH's in Zim that are back stabbing other PHs who have lost everything. They hunt on their confiscated farms, they cut deals to run the PH out of their long term concessions. Why?

Are you supporting the under hand tactics of these PH's so that they survive. What about the PH's or farmers they are helping to screw. What about their families and workers.

Recently a White PH wanted a camp another White PH had for over 20 years. Even though the lease was good for many more years this PH cut a deal with a local and they booted the PH out of the camp he built.

Is this the type of PH you want to hunt with and support?

There are many in Zim that do not deal with Mugabe or his cronies and these are the ones that should be supported.

TNJohn,

I wasn't directing my comments at you, just the overall nature of the topic. Stealing someone's concession is something no one can support. However, people need to realize that there are certain compromises that many Zimbabweans have to make, just in order to go about their day-to-day lives.

I am interested in sable and had looked at the Matetsi area for a safari. I am unable to find any of the Matetsi Units that aren't controlled by Mugabe's henchmen, so I am looking elsewhere. So I have chosen not support that part of Zimbabwe's safari industry.

Regards,

Terry

Terry

Thanks

John

quote:

Originally posted by TNJohn:
T Carr

I assume you are referring to my post. If you are, note that I said to support those PH's that havent sold their souls. Broad brush, dont think so.

There are several PH's in Zim that are back stabbing other PHs who have lost everything. They hunt on their confiscated farms, they cut deals to run the PH out of their long term concessions. Why?

Are you supporting the under hand tactics of these PH's so that they survive. What about the PH's or farmers they are helping to screw. What about their families and workers.

Recently a White PH wanted a camp another White PH had for over 20 years. Even though the lease was good for many more years this PH cut a deal with a local and they booted the PH out of the camp he built.

Is this the type of PH you want to hunt with and support?

There are many in Zim that do not deal with Mugabe or his cronies and these are the ones that should be supported.

Please post who these PHs are and I will avoid them like the plague!

465H&H

A few of the names have been tossed around in the two discussions on this subject. One of the biggest was OOA.

Just waiting to see if this upcoming season the Zambezi Valley? PH vanh that facilitated the taking of a camp will continue to use the camp or will be screwed by his black partners.

Visit with Sharpe and some of the other better known PHs at Dallas or Reno and you will be able to learn much.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
I have to agree with Saeed. it is a pretty well know thing that HHK's guys are all carrying uncle bobs cards with them

I was in Zim last summer and hunted with HHK. I talked specifically with Graham about this and with several of his staff people. All of them had lost farms to the war vets/scavengers. If they "had Bob's card" it did not do them any good.

I tend to agree with Saeeds thoughts that essentially one might have to get into bed with the villians to a degree when caught between a rock and a hard place ..

At the end of the DAY we are all masters of our own destiny to a degree ... if anyone (generically speaking) wants to sleep with the enemy it is not my business, or anyone else's for that matter ... BUT we are all grown up hopefully (street wise) and know the laws within our own country and the countries we might visit, therfore if we do anything illegal or immoral we must then NOT cry like babies when we get busted ... Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, not in this day and age of electronic media AR forums and the internet in general

I dont have (any axe to grind) with either HHK or any of Zim's operators so dont take this as an implication that they are not 100% clean BUT as one other of our esteemed AR poster mentioned, there ARE many (bona fide legal outfitters) operating within Zims whom (deserve the support) of our AR hunters be those outfitters HHK or any others that are free of the chains of political ownership.

Morally and legally we are responsible for our own actions and consequences thereafter

In defence of Don Causey /

Don is in the information media and only human like most of us, he like most of the media gets sourced information and publishes it in the publics general interest, no one always has all the facts 100% correct all the time and we are wise enough hopefully to know that any information published needs to be treated cautiously whether from Don or any other outlet or from any one of us individually, we are not perfect and dont always have 100% of the facts at our finger tips, but we do try to inform people to the best of our ability

Good huntin

Peter

Graham,



Thank you for writing. I called HHK and was told no one was available to speak to me.



Please understand, Graham, that I want to see hunting continue in Zimbabwe as long as possible. What I am genuinely concerned about is the US government’s apparent new interest in shutting down the flow of money to Banned Individuals. Our Treasury Department, once it gets mobilized, is very efficient in carrying out sanctions. I know because I have followed the Cuban sanctions closely with my Angling Report newsletter. They are going to whack US citizens for close to a million dollars in fines this year alone for travel to Cuba. I am genuinely concerned that they are getting ready to do the same thing to individuals who have business dealings with Banned Individuals in Zimbabwe. What you say about Shamu and his non-involvement doesn’t make sense on the face of it. His safari company is partial holder of the Chirisa Concession but he enjoys no benefit? Why would he allow that? The explanation simply doesn’t make common sense, and I do not think it is going to be accepted by our Treasury Department. Right now your web site uses the word “incorporate†to explain its relation to Famba. I think it is imperative that some new explanation be put forth. You should go to the Treasury Department web site and read the new Executive Order. It explicitly seeks to close the loophole through which family members of Banned Individuals can receive money. It is not, in my view, going to satisfy our Treasury Department if HHK is funneling money to Shamu through a daughter or uncle or some other family member.



You can read the Executive Order by going to google. Type OFAC in the search line. You can find your way from there. If that doesn’t work, type US Treasury Department on the search line and find your way to OFAC – Office of Foreign Assets Control.



We both want to see hunting continue. I work for the clients, though, Graham. My job is to keep them out of the slammer and out of the line of fire. How do we both do that? Eager to hear your thoughts.



Don Causey





Dear Don

Perhaps I can clear this up for you. In 1999 HHK Safaris wanted to purchase the hunting rights for Chirisa off Ingwe Safaris, they had purchased the lease on auction in 1994. In order to be allowed to participate in the auction they had to have an indigenous partner (front man for a better word) and this person happened to be Webster Shamu (remember now this was in 1994 a long time before any sanctions were muted. Ingwe successfully purchased the area on the auction and entered into an agreement with Mr. Shamu whereby he received a nominal fee for acting as the front person. The company which held the lease was called Famba Safaris. Mr Shamu signed an agreement abdicating all rights to the Chirisa Safari area in terms of management, profit sharing etc. Understand Mr. Shamu invested not one cent of his own funds into the deal. Which is why he was quite happy to sign any agreement.

In 1999 when we purchased the rights to Chirisa off Ingwe Safaris, we insisted this same agreement was passed onto HHK Safaris. In other words Mr. Shamu acted as the front man for Famba but all rights including management and profits were for HHK alone.

The bottom line Don is this agreement is still in place, anyone hunting with HHK Safaris is not in violation of any sanctions as no profits or funds are passing onto Mr. Shamu, we have taken legal opinion on this and we are quite prepared to take action against anyone or entity that mis states the correct facts and is damaging to our operation.

I state again, Mr. Shamu is not a partner or shareholder in HHK Safaris and he never has been, he in no way shares on the profits from HHK Safaris operations.

sincerely

Graham

There may be a legal loophole.

"These prohibitions also extend to any person, organization or entity found to be
owned, controlled or acting on behalf of any Zimbabwe entity included on the SDN
list."

Keyword is "found"

"Transactions that do not involve any of the Zimbabwe SDNs, or any person or
entity believed to be owned, controlled or acting on behalf of a Zimbabwe SDN
are not prohibited by the new Executive Order."

Keyword is "believed"

However

"Attempts to evade or avoid these sanctions are also prohibited."

quote:

Dear Don

Perhaps I can clear this up for you.

I state again, Mr. Shamu is not a partner or shareholder in HHK Safaris and he never has been, he in no way shares on the profits from HHK Safaris operations.

sincerely

Graham

This might be a totally STUPID question as I often do get the wrong end of the stick ..

BUT I was just interested as to why MR.Shamu is actually still then retained on the legal company contract files when (it appears to me) he has NO logical reason to be there !!!

What is the actual point in him being retained purely as a ghost figure. Would it not be politically better to have him therefore removed totally from the records as he is of no value as I can see to the company anymore and the law is a funny thing at times and it might be interpreted differently if there was ever a court challenge as to his status.

If the sole reason for MR.Shamu being retained as a (front man local indigenous chap) for future auctions criteria then would it not be much more politically correct to get someone else NOT on that pack of cards banned list, it would be quite a simple process I would have thought to get a simple name change so to speak!

Peter