a tripartite report - Unctad

ZAMBIA
charging consumers more than the price indicated
or displayed on a product or service, violating
consumer product safety)
For most offences relating to consumer protection
(i.e., those related to unfair trading practices, false
or misleading representations, supply of defective
and unsuitable goods and services, and consumer
product safety), the imposition of penalty units is
allowed in terms of section 50(3) of the Act in cases
where such units are higher than the monetary
the case of product labelling, the criminal sanction
of imprisonment of up to 3 years may also be
imposed.
Penalty units are provided for in the Fees and
Fines Act (Cap 45) of 1994. Part III of that Act, on
Fines and Penalty Units, provides that where any
units, and that “in any written law, unless the context
otherwise requires, ‘penalty unit’ means one
hundred and eighty kwacha”. At the current ex-
Imprisonment can also be imposed in terms of
section 7(6) of the Act on anyone who delays or
obstructs the Commission’s investigations, or gives
the Commission false or misleading information in
the course of its investigations.
higher than those under the old Act, which only
enough for serious competition offences such as
cartelization and monopolization, as well as for
consumer protection offences.
It is noted that section 86(3) provides that the
in relation to the annual turnover of a person or
an enterprise that is prescribed by the Minister re-
potential adverse side-effects to effective implementation
of competition policy and law. Firstly, it
puts the neutrality of the competition authority at
might guide the authority in arriving at its decisions
on competition cases. Secondly, the monetary interest
in competition enforcement activities directs
the attention of the competition authority from
other equally important competition promotion
135
activities, such as advocacy. While the investigation
of competition and consumer protection violations
is a resourceful activity on the part of competition
authorities, whose costs need to be defrayed by
investigative activity, the costs should more appropriately
be defrayed from administrative fees
It is recommended that section 86(3) of the
Act, which provides that the Minister of
Finance may prescribe the percentage
of the turnover paid by a person or an
the provisions of the Act be retained
by the Commission be deleted.
Among other administrative sanctions under
the Act, the Commission may revoke approved
mergers, or exemptions granted on anticompetitive
practices, if a party to the merger or exempted
practice submitted materially incorrect or misleading
information in support of the merger or
the practice, or fails to comply with any condition
of an approval of the merger or exemption of the
practice (section 21(1) and section 35(1)). It may
also make a person liable for any loss or damage
arising as a result of the lack of conformity of the
goods with the relevant standard, or the defect or
dangerous characteristic on account of which the
goods have been declared unsafe (section 52(3),
or declare unfair contract terms null and void.
Section 82 of the Act contains the general penalty
provisions. In that section, it is provided that
“a person who contravenes a provision of this Act
under this Act, commits an offence and is liable,
hundred thousand penalty units or to imprisonment
for a period not exceeding one year, or to
both”.
Section 83 makes managers of offending enterprises
personally liable for offences committed by
the enterprise, thus strengthening the deterrent
effects of sanctions under the Act. The relevant
provisions of section 83 provide that “where an offence
under this Act is committed by a body corporate
or unincorporated body, every director or
manager of the body corporate or unincorporated
body shall be liable, upon conviction, as if the di-
ZAMBIA