RSSB’s acquisition of the remaining interests held by Crystal Ventures Limited in Inyange Industries and Ruliba Clays should have been a straightforward investment announcement, but it is becoming an accountability question because the most important numbers remain missing.
For two days, we have sought basic information from RSSB: how much was paid for each company, what they were independently valued at, whether they were profitable or loss-making, what liabilities came with them and what returns pensioners should expect. Officials have engaged us, yet two days later they have still not provided these figures.
That is difficult to understand because if RSSB completed due diligence, negotiated the transaction and approved the deployment of pension assets, the institution already possesses these numbers. If some details are commercially confidential, it should simply say so, explain the limitations and disclose whatever information can legitimately be made public.
This newspaper has previously reported positively on RSSB’s performance. Earlier this year, we reported on an institution managing investments measured in trillions of francs and generating substantial revenues and investment income, evidence that RSSB has made many investments that have worked and that its enormous portfolio cannot fairly be reduced to a narrative of failure.
But good overall performance does not automatically make every investment a good investment; RSSB has also recorded losses and made decisions that have attracted legitimate questions over judgment, performance and accountability, which is precisely why every major transaction must stand on its own financial merits.
The sensitivity of this particular deal is greater because Crystal Ventures Limited is widely identified as the investment arm of the ruling RPF, meaning a statutory social-security institution has purchased major corporate interests from an entity associated with the ruling party.
That does not make the transaction improper, and there is no evidence that RSSB was instructed to rescue CVL; indeed, the acquisition may ultimately prove to be an excellent investment. But precisely because of the relationship between buyer and seller, the threshold for transparency should be considerably higher.
Was this an arm’s-length transaction conducted purely on commercial merit? Who independently valued Inyange and Ruliba, what due diligence was conducted, were potential conflicts of interest identified and managed, why was CVL selling while RSSB was buying, and ultimately, what did RSSB pay? These are not hostile questions; they are elementary governance questions that any serious institutional investor should expect following a transaction of this nature.
Instead of straightforward answers, the attitude encountered from some RSSB officials has been deeply disappointing, with their apparent arrogance and disrespect towards legitimate inquiries creating the impression of executives behaving as though they are running a family business.
Who do these guys think they are? They are custodians, not owners; RSSB is not their private company, pension assets are not their family money, and executives entrusted with billions of francs belonging to other people should never consider questions about how that money is invested an inconvenience.
Their silence is also feeding a much bigger reputational problem. There is already substantial negative content about RSSB circulating publicly, some of it critical, speculative or plainly malicious, alongside persistent perceptions in political commentary and online discussions portraying RSSB as an “RPF financial garden” rather than an independently governed social-security institution.
We are not presenting that allegation as fact, but RSSB should understand that its constant discretion and reluctance to communicate openly on sensitive investments provide oxygen to precisely these narratives; whenever an institution leaves an information vacuum, critics, political opponents, social media speculation and misinformation will inevitably fill it.
The Inyange-Ruliba transaction demonstrates the danger perfectly: a pension institution buys assets from a company associated with the ruling party and then does not disclose the price. Even where the transaction is completely legitimate and commercially attractive, that combination inevitably raises questions that proactive transparency could have prevented.
RSSB itself speaks of integrity, accountability, respect and putting members first, but those principles are tested when uncomfortable questions are asked, not merely when they appear in corporate statements.
Its principal mandatory pension scheme operates on a Defined Benefit model, while EjoHeza is a separate Defined Contribution scheme, but that distinction does not diminish the importance of investment performance because the financial health of the pension fund matters to members, pensioners, Government and ultimately the wider public.
By withholding basic financial information for two days, RSSB has unnecessarily allowed speculation to grow over whether this was an excellent investment, whether RSSB was providing CVL with a convenient exit, whether the businesses were profitable or struggling, and whether RSSB bought cheaply, at fair value or expensively.
There is currently no evidence to conclude that RSSB used pension money to rescue CVL companies, and making such an allegation without evidence would be irresponsible, but RSSB cannot create an information vacuum and then be surprised when the public begins asking what happened inside it.
This is not malicious scrutiny. We recently reported RSSB’s successes and should continue reporting them when they occur, just as journalism has an obligation to examine its losses, controversial investments and major transactions.
Our responsibility is to establish the facts and report them truthfully and at the right time, while RSSB’s responsibility is to provide sufficient information for the public to distinguish fact from speculation.
The behaviour of officials is also unnecessarily putting the appointing authority in the limelight because when executives appear arrogant or secretive about a sensitive transaction involving pension assets and a company associated with the ruling party, questions inevitably travel upwards: Who appointed them, who supervises them, and why is such elementary information unavailable? There is simply no reason to create that political burden when professional and timely communication could resolve much of the controversy.
RSSB may have made an excellent investment in Inyange and Ruliba, and if so, transparency will strengthen that conclusion rather than weaken it. It should publish the purchase price and explain the valuations, profitability, liabilities, due diligence and expected returns; where legitimate commercial confidentiality applies, it should say so clearly and explain what information cannot be released and why.
RSSB has demonstrated that it can make money; it must now demonstrate that it can account for how it spends it, because pensioners’ money is not family money.
