About
Many infrastructure opportunities in emerging markets never reach the capital they…
Services
Articles by Tanya
-
DRC Invest 2025 Forum: Building a Competitive, Industrial, and Inclusive Congo
DRC Invest 2025 Forum: Building a Competitive, Industrial, and Inclusive Congo
Kinshasa, 23 September 2025, Fleuve Congo Hotel. From 22 to 23 September 2025, Kinshasa hosted one of the year’s most…
2 Comments -
DRC Plans $1.5 Billion Eurobond: Could This Be a Turning Point for Its Credit Rating?
DRC Plans $1.5 Billion Eurobond: Could This Be a Turning Point for Its Credit Rating?
Written by : Tanya Kabuya, Editor in Chief, Business Creed Magazine The Democratic Republic of Congo is preparing to…
-
The DRC Investment Forum 2025: Where Africa’s Future is Being Written - Will You Be in the Room?
The DRC Investment Forum 2025: Where Africa’s Future is Being Written - Will You Be in the Room?
By Tanya Kabuya, Editor-in-Chief, Business Creed Magazine I’ve always said that in Africa, the real business…
4 Comments -
You Don’t Need to Be in Tech to Build a Scalable, Sellable Business
You Don’t Need to Be in Tech to Build a Scalable, Sellable Business
“But Tanya, I run a bakery… not a tech startup.” That’s what a founder said to me after a business growth workshop I…
-
The Struggle for Scale in EMEA Startups Isn’t Just About Revenue or Valuation
The Struggle for Scale in EMEA Startups Isn’t Just About Revenue or Valuation
You’ve made it past the early days. Revenue’s coming in, your team is growing, and maybe you’ve even raised a round or…
2 Comments -
Entrepreneurship is Lonely—But It Doesn’t Have to Be
Entrepreneurship is Lonely—But It Doesn’t Have to Be
Starting a business is often painted as a journey of passion, freedom, and financial independence. But what people…
-
Marketing Isn’t Just About Selling—It’s About Building a Movement
Marketing Isn’t Just About Selling—It’s About Building a Movement
If you’ve been feeling like your marketing isn’t hitting the way it should—like you’re doing all the right things, but…
1 Comment -
Why Profitable Businesses Go Broke & How to Fix It
Why Profitable Businesses Go Broke & How to Fix It
Most entrepreneurs think that as long as sales are growing, their business is healthy. Wrong.
3 Comments -
Is Your Sales Process Helping Your Business Grow, or Holding It Back?
Is Your Sales Process Helping Your Business Grow, or Holding It Back?
Scaling a tech or services company is no easy feat,what once worked to land early customers and drive initial traction…
2 Comments -
Struggling to Scale? The Truth About Growth & Why More Leads Won’t Fix It
Struggling to Scale? The Truth About Growth & Why More Leads Won’t Fix It
So, you are feeling like your business should be growing faster, yet every effort seems to fall flat? You’re pouring…
1 Comment
Activity
16K followers
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisI understand why many Africans believe Chinese, Turkish, European or American companies get infrastructure contracts by preference. And sometimes, there may be legitimate reasons to question how contracts are awarded or how local participation is handled. But after working in PPP, I've come to see another side of this. Sometimes what looks like foreign preference is actually a transaction architecture problem. Historically, there have been infrastructure transactions where the private consortium came to government with almost the entire architecture already designed: The financing structure. The EPC structure. The risk allocation. The revenue model. The contractual protections. The procurement assumptions. And sometimes, even the implementation structure. Meanwhile, the government side didn't always have an equally strong transaction team capable of independently structuring, stress-testing and negotiating the transaction. So what happens? The government doesn't necessarily negotiate its own transaction. It negotiates the transaction the consortium has proposed. And that's a very different thing. This is also where some of the frustration around foreign contractors needs to be examined more carefully. If a consortium arrives with financing, technology, EPC capability, suppliers, insurance and an execution model already packaged together, it can look like that company was simply "favoured." But sometimes the more fundamental question is: Who designed the deal? Because whoever has the strongest transaction architecture often has significant influence over how the risks, returns, obligations and protections are ultimately distributed. And this is why I don't think African governments only need better procurement rules. They need stronger public-side transaction architecture. They need people who can sit across the table from a consortium and understand: "Why is this risk being allocated to us?" "Why is this financing structured this way?" "Why is this guarantee necessary?" "Why does the revenue model look like this?" "What happens if the assumptions don't materialise?" "Where is the value for the public side?" "Where is the local economic participation?" And most importantly: "What would this transaction look like if we designed it from our side first?" Foreign companies are not inherently the problem. African governments accepting transactions they did not independently architect can be a much deeper problem. The objective isn't to keep foreign capital out. It's to make sure that when foreign capital comes in, the government is negotiating from a position of transaction intelligence, not simply reacting to a deal that someone else has already designed. That's the difference between participating in a PPP... and actually structuring one.
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisOne of the fastest ways to lose me in a PPP negotiation is to tell me everything the government needs to give you before telling me what the government gets in return. I've seen it repeatedly. The private party wants a concession. A guarantee. Fiscal or customs treatment. Land. Government commitments. Revenue support. Exclusivity. Risk protection. And the argument is usually: "This is what we need to make the project work." Fine. But that's only half of the transaction. My question is much simpler: What does the public sector get in exchange? And I don't mean the headline on the presentation. I mean whether the overall transaction creates enough public value to justify the obligations, risks and concessions being asked of government. That's where the conversation gets interesting. Because a transaction can be extremely attractive to the private party and still be difficult for the public side to justify. And the reverse can also be true. That's why I don't approach negotiation as: "How much can we get the other side to concede?" I'm looking at the transaction as a whole. What is being exchanged? Where is the value? Where is the risk? And does the final structure make sense for the parties who are actually carrying the consequences? Sometimes the answer is to restructure the transaction. Sometimes the economics need to change. Sometimes the risk allocation needs to change. And sometimes the answer is simply: "No. We can't justify this." That doesn't mean the government is anti-investment. It means the transaction hasn't yet earned a "yes." And this is where serious transaction advisory matters. Because once a government signs a bad structure, the problem doesn't disappear. It becomes an obligation. My role isn't to make every transaction happen. It's to understand whether the transaction is worth making happen,and, when it is, help structure it so that the parties can actually stand behind it. That's the difference between facilitating a deal and architecting one. If you are working on a significant infrastructure or investment transaction and need someone willing to interrogate the structure before expensive commitments are made, that's the work I do. Mandates aren't cheap. Neither are badly structured transactions.
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisI've been getting quite a few private messages asking me what I think about the Kinshasa Stock Exchange. So let me put my thoughts here. I actually think this could be one of the more important developments for the DRC’s capital markets. But not simply because "we will finally have a stock exchange." That's actually the least interesting part to me. The interesting part is what it could unlock. Because I keep seeing the same problem in different forms. A company has a good business. It has customers. It has revenue. It has identified a huge opportunity to expand. Then the owner tells me that they need $10M–$20M to get to the next level. And suddenly, the options become very limited. Go to the bank. Find one strategic investor. Find a private investor willing to put up the money. Give away a significant piece of the company. Or simply don't expand at the scale the opportunity requires. The problem isn't always that the business isn't valuable. Sometimes the problem is that the capital architecture hasn't caught up with the business. This is where a functioning capital market becomes interesting. Because the answer doesn't always have to be: Find one person with $20M. You could eventually have a company accessing equity markets. Or issuing debt. Or doing a private placement first and moving towards a public-market transaction later. The point isn't that every company should IPO. The point is that companies have more options. And I think the same applies to projects. Take infrastructure. I’ve looked at enough infrastructure transactions to know that a project can be genuinely important, have government support, have a capable private-sector party behind it, and still struggle to get financed. Why? Because the conversation often starts with: "Who will finance this?" But imagine a different conversation. A project is structured properly. The government concession or PPP framework is clear. The project has a credible revenue model. The risks are allocated properly. The SPV is established. Development capital gets the project to bankability. Construction financing comes in. The project starts operating. Now you have an asset with actual performance. At that point, the conversation can become: “How do we bring institutional capital into this asset?” And eventually: "Can we refinance or partially exit through the capital markets?" CONTINUED IN THE COMMENT SECTION
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisQuestion sur le contenu local et le recrutement en RDC 🇨🇩 Je suis tombée sur cette annonce de recrutement pour un poste de Regional Head of Construction / Project Director – RDC, dont le lieu d’affectation est indiqué comme étant la République démocratique du Congo, mais avec une condition de nationalité explicitement formulée ainsi : « Indian Candidates Only. » Cela a retenu mon attention. Je comprends parfaitement que des entreprises internationales puissent rechercher une expertise technique spécifique, une expérience internationale ou des compétences spécialisées qui ne sont pas immédiatement disponibles sur le marché local. Ce n’est pas la question. La question est différente : un poste basé en RDC peut-il être publié sur une base « ressortissants indiens uniquement », notamment lorsque les responsabilités comprennent la direction de projets, la planification des effectifs, les relations avec le client et les consultants, ainsi que la coordination avec les autorités publiques ? Le cadre congolais relatif au contenu local accorde une importance croissante à la participation des travailleurs nationaux et au développement des capacités locales L’ARMP a notamment rappelé que la nouvelle Loi sur le contenu local vise à promouvoir la participation des travailleurs nationaux dans les chaînes de valeur économiques. L’ARSP inscrit également la protection de la main-d’œuvre nationale et la participation locale parmi les objectifs du dispositif de contenu local. Le Ministère de l’Emploi et du Travail est par ailleurs activement engagé sur les questions de conformité en matière d’emploi et de présence de travailleurs expatriés en RDC. Je souhaiterais donc que les autorités compétentes puissent clarifier publiquement les points suivants : 1. Ce type de recrutement fondé explicitement sur une nationalité particulière est-il conforme aux exigences applicables en RDC en matière d’emploi, de travailleurs étrangers et de contenu local ? 2. Lorsqu’un recrutement étranger est justifié par une véritable insuffisance de compétences disponibles localement, quelle est la procédure appropriée pour démontrer cette insuffisance et obtenir les autorisations nécessaires ? Il ne s’agit évidemment pas de s’opposer à l’expertise étrangère. La RDC a besoin d’expertise internationale, de capitaux, de technologies et de compétences spécialisées. Mais l’enjeu est de s’assurer que l’investissement international contribue également au développement des compétences congolaises, à l’emploi local et au transfert de savoir-faire, plutôt qu’à la création de marchés du travail parallèles à l’intérieur du pays. J’aimerais donc beaucoup connaître la position réglementaire des institutions compétentes sur ce type de pratique, particulièrement à un moment où la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle Loi sur le contenu local est en cours. ARSP - Autorité de Régulation de la Sous-traitance dans le secteur Privé Ministère de l'Emploi et Travail - RDC Ted Beleshayi #ContenuLocalTanya Kabuya shared this🚨 HIRING | REGIONAL HEAD OF CONSTRUCTION / PROJECT DIRECTOR – DRC 🇨🇩 Location: Democratic Republic of Congo Salary: Up to USD 3,500/month Nationality: Indian Candidates Only We are looking for an experienced Construction Executive to lead large-scale projects and provide regional project oversight in DRC. 🔹 REQUIREMENTS • 15+ years of senior-level construction experience • Experience managing multiple projects / large project portfolios • Fluent French – Mandatory (spoken & written) • Working proficiency in English • Strong commercial, budgeting & regulatory compliance experience • Experience with heavy machinery, procurement & manpower planning • Excellent leadership and stakeholder management skills 🔹 RESPONSIBILITIES 🏗️ End-to-end project delivery 💰 Budget & commercial control 🚜 Machinery, materials & manpower planning 👷 Team leadership & development 🤝 Client, consultant & government coordination 🦺 HSE, QA/QC & project governance 📩 Send CV: hr@therecruitglobe.com 📱 WhatsApp: +91-7303352800 THE RECRUIT GLOBE International Recruitment | Construction | Infrastructure | Mining #Hiring #DRCJobs #CongoJobs #ConstructionJobs #ProjectDirector #ConstructionDirector #FrenchSpeakingJobs #AfricaJobs #InternationalJobs #IndianProfessionals
-
Tanya Kabuya shared this"Madame Tanya azalaka matata." She is difficult. She doesn't concede easily. I've heard versions of this more than once in PPP negotiation rooms in Kinshasa - from private-sector representatives, investors, EPCs and even some of the people facilitating discussions. Even our Provincial Minister and Chief of Staff have joked about it. And honestly? They're right. But there is a reason. I understand what a bad deal looks like. When you're sitting across the table negotiating a PPP, my job isn't to make everyone comfortable. It's to understand what the transaction actually means for the public side. What are we giving? What are we taking? What happens if the assumptions don't hold? Who carries the risk? What does the financing actually cost? What happens when the project doesn't perform as projected? What obligations are being created ten or twenty years from now? And sometimes the answer is: "No. That doesn't work." Not because I'm trying to kill the transaction. Because I don't believe getting a transaction signed is the same thing as getting a good transaction. I've seen how quickly a proposal can sound attractive when you only listen to the pitch. But once you start looking at the economics, the risk allocation, the financing, the government obligations and what happens when things don't go according to plan, the picture can change very quickly. That's why I don't negotiate from the position of: "How do we get this deal done?" I start with: "Does this deal make sense?" If it does, my job is to help get it there. If it doesn't, I'm going to say so. And yes… Madame Tanya azalaka matata. Maybe. But sometimes "matata" is simply what happens when someone at the table understands what a bad deal looks like.
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisOne of the questions I've been getting after my Dangote IPOs posts is: "But what if you don't have Dangote's money?" That's actually where the conversation gets interesting. Because development capital is hard. A developer can have the land, concession, government mandate, technical solution, market opportunity and even a strong team, and still not have the cash to fund the feasibility studies and transaction work needed to make the project investable. So what do you do? You don't solve that by saying, 'go find an investor.' You have to change the proposition. Dangote is a good example. The refinery didn't start with $20bn sitting in a refinery SPV. AFC provided early capital. AfDB came in while it was still a greenfield project. Other lenders and institutions subsequently came into the financing structure. And as the project moved from concept → construction → operations, the risk changed. So did the capital. That's the part I think developers should study. If you don't have $5m to develop a $200m project, you may need to find someone willing to fund development risk, not someone willing to finance the finished project. But they won't do that simply because your project is "big." You have to give them a path to value. Maybe they get equity in the SPV. Maybe it's a development facility that gets repaid at financial close. Maybe a strategic partner funds development in exchange for a defined participation. Maybe government contributes land or project rights. Maybe a DFI funds project preparation. Maybe the developer contributes the origination and development work while the capital partner funds the cash costs. But before you approach any of those parties, someone has to actually structure that proposition. What is the project worth at this stage? What exactly needs funding? What does the capital fund? What does the capital provider receive? What happens at financial close? What risk is being transferred? What does the next financing round look like? That's often the work between having a project and having something an investor can actually underwrite. And that work has value. It's why, in our own mandates, we don't start with "let's introduce you to investors." We start with the project, the risk allocation, the capital requirement and the pathway to bankability. Because investor access is not the strategy. The structure is. And there's another important lesson from Dangote: The early capital doesn't necessarily stay in the project forever. AFC's early capital was eventually repaid. Construction expenditure was later refinanced through a roughly $4bn syndicated facility. Institutional equity then came in through the $2.5bn private placement. And now we're watching the IPO. CONT'D IN THE COMMENT SECTION
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisThere is a financing myth about PPPs that I keep hearing from companies entering African infrastructure markets. And it has consequences for how they approach governments. The argument usually goes something like this: -African governments can't get multilateral funding. -Multilateral funding takes too long. -So governments need PPPs. And then: If you find us a PPP investor, we can come in as the EPC. There are several problems with that logic. First, PPP is not simply what you do when multilateral funding isn't available. Africa absolutely has a massive infrastructure financing gap. But a financing gap is not the same thing as an inability to access multilateral capital. The African Development Bank approved $10.9 billion in new operations in 2025, alongside another $4.3 billion mobilised from development partners, institutional investors and commercial lenders. The World Bank Group says it mobilised $22 billion of private capital across Africa in FY2026, as part of $112 billion mobilised globally. And look at the DRC. As of March 2026, the World Bank reported $7.6 billion of active engagement in the country, across 23 operations. Its current financing database shows more than $20.8 billion in total World Bank commitments across 145 DRC projects. The IMF has also reported that the DRC's own stocktake identified 32 PPPs representing more than $13 billion as of 2024. So when someone walks into an African government and says: You can't get multilateral funding, so PPP is the solution,I think they are starting the conversation from the wrong premise. The real question is often much more sophisticated: What type of capital is appropriate for this transaction, and is the project sufficiently prepared to absorb it? Those are very different questions. And this is where the EPC conversation comes back in. Suppose I have an advanced PPP. A consortium has originated it. They have spent money developing it. They have worked through the technical solution. They have engaged government. They have developed the commercial structure. They have worked on the capital strategy. Why would that consortium necessarily take an EPC referral from someone who arrived at the end? They may simply run a competitive procurement. At that point, they can test the market for the best combination of price, technical capability, delivery terms and risk allocation. The referral opportunity was earlier. When the transaction was still being shaped. When the consortium was being assembled. When the technical solution could influence the economics. When the EPC could actually contribute to the architecture of the transaction. This is why I keep saying that PPP is not an EPC procurement strategy. CONT'D IN THE COMMENT SECTION
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisSometimes the lowest EPC bid is not the bid that gets you the deal. And one reason is how you think about local content. A lot of international contractors approach local content as a compliance question: "What does the law require us to do?" So they meet the minimum. A certain percentage of local workers. A local entity. A few local suppliers. Some training. Tick the box. Legally compliant. But compliance and strategy are not the same thing. Compliance asks: " What is the minimum we must do?" Strategy asks: "How do we structure this transaction so the country has a reason to support it?" That distinction matters enormously in infrastructure. Because when a government looks at a major EPC or PPP, it isn't only looking at the asset. It's also looking at the economic activity that comes with the asset. Where will the money go? Who will benefit? Which local companies will participate? What skills will remain in the country? What professional capacity will be developed? How much of the project spend will circulate through the domestic economy? And that becomes particularly important when the public sector is taking on repayment obligations or other forms of support. The government isn't simply asking: "Can you build this?" It's also asking: "Why should we commit public resources to this particular transaction?" You can answer that question with infrastructure. But a stronger answer can also include: jobs + local businesses + skills + suppliers + technology transfer + domestic economic activity. This is where some international EPCs and investors make an avoidable mistake. They optimise aggressively for the lowest project cost. And sometimes that means bringing in a large proportion of their own professional and skilled workforce, sourcing heavily from their existing supply chains and keeping much of the project value outside the country. It may produce a very competitive EPC price. But it can also weaken the broader proposition. And here's the part I want private-sector players to understand: You don't necessarily have to wait for government to demand more local participation. You can design it into your proposal from the beginning. That's strategy. Instead of saying: "Tell us what local content percentage we have to meet." You can be saying: "Here's how we're going to create economic value in your country while still delivering this project at a competitive cost." That's a very different conversation. And it can matter when you're negotiating with government. CONT'D IN THE COMMENT SECTION #TransactionArchitecture #PPP #EPCF #Infrastructure #LocalContent #InfrastructureInvestment #ProjectFinance #TransactionStructuring #AfricaInfrastructure
-
Tanya Kabuya shared thisI think Dangote is giving African operators a masterclass. Not because everyone has Dangote's capital. They don't. That's exactly why I think the decade-long journey is worth studying. The refinery started as a roughly $9bn project, with a proposed mix of equity and debt. Banks came in. AfDB came in with $300m. AFC later provided catalytic financing. The project kept evolving, and so did the capital around it. Then came the hard part: Years of construction. Cost overruns. Delays. Capital tied up before the asset generated operating cash flow. Then the refinery started operating in 2024. And suddenly the financing conversation changed. Working capital. Refinancing. A $4bn syndicated facility. Then, this year, a $2.5bn institutional private placement. And now the IPO. That's the part I find fascinating. The asset didn't raise all its capital at once. The capital came in layers as the risk changed. And that's the lesson I'd take from Dangote if I were an African operator without billions sitting in the bank: Don't ask, "How do I find $20bn?" Ask: What is the next risk I need to remove, and what type of capital funds that risk? You might need sponsor equity to get the project moving. Then development capital. Then a DFI. Then construction debt. Then an offtake structure. Then working capital. Then refinancing once the asset is operating. Then institutional equity. Then public markets. That's how you turn a capital-intensive idea into an investable asset. And that applies to much more than refineries. Power. Ports. Rail. Water. Hospitals. Industrial parks. Data centres. Housing. Urban transport. Africa doesn't necessarily need thousands of entrepreneurs who can personally fund the entire project. We need more entrepreneurs who understand how to make each stage fundable. That's the real Dangote masterclass. Not having all the capital. Knowing how to build the capital stack.
-
Tanya Kabuya liked thisI understand why many Africans believe Chinese, Turkish, European or American companies get infrastructure contracts by preference. And sometimes, there may be legitimate reasons to question how contracts are awarded or how local participation is handled. But after working in PPP, I've come to see another side of this. Sometimes what looks like foreign preference is actually a transaction architecture problem. Historically, there have been infrastructure transactions where the private consortium came to government with almost the entire architecture already designed: The financing structure. The EPC structure. The risk allocation. The revenue model. The contractual protections. The procurement assumptions. And sometimes, even the implementation structure. Meanwhile, the government side didn't always have an equally strong transaction team capable of independently structuring, stress-testing and negotiating the transaction. So what happens? The government doesn't necessarily negotiate its own transaction. It negotiates the transaction the consortium has proposed. And that's a very different thing. This is also where some of the frustration around foreign contractors needs to be examined more carefully. If a consortium arrives with financing, technology, EPC capability, suppliers, insurance and an execution model already packaged together, it can look like that company was simply "favoured." But sometimes the more fundamental question is: Who designed the deal? Because whoever has the strongest transaction architecture often has significant influence over how the risks, returns, obligations and protections are ultimately distributed. And this is why I don't think African governments only need better procurement rules. They need stronger public-side transaction architecture. They need people who can sit across the table from a consortium and understand: "Why is this risk being allocated to us?" "Why is this financing structured this way?" "Why is this guarantee necessary?" "Why does the revenue model look like this?" "What happens if the assumptions don't materialise?" "Where is the value for the public side?" "Where is the local economic participation?" And most importantly: "What would this transaction look like if we designed it from our side first?" Foreign companies are not inherently the problem. African governments accepting transactions they did not independently architect can be a much deeper problem. The objective isn't to keep foreign capital out. It's to make sure that when foreign capital comes in, the government is negotiating from a position of transaction intelligence, not simply reacting to a deal that someone else has already designed. That's the difference between participating in a PPP... and actually structuring one.
-
Tanya Kabuya liked thisOne of the fastest ways to lose me in a PPP negotiation is to tell me everything the government needs to give you before telling me what the government gets in return. I've seen it repeatedly. The private party wants a concession. A guarantee. Fiscal or customs treatment. Land. Government commitments. Revenue support. Exclusivity. Risk protection. And the argument is usually: "This is what we need to make the project work." Fine. But that's only half of the transaction. My question is much simpler: What does the public sector get in exchange? And I don't mean the headline on the presentation. I mean whether the overall transaction creates enough public value to justify the obligations, risks and concessions being asked of government. That's where the conversation gets interesting. Because a transaction can be extremely attractive to the private party and still be difficult for the public side to justify. And the reverse can also be true. That's why I don't approach negotiation as: "How much can we get the other side to concede?" I'm looking at the transaction as a whole. What is being exchanged? Where is the value? Where is the risk? And does the final structure make sense for the parties who are actually carrying the consequences? Sometimes the answer is to restructure the transaction. Sometimes the economics need to change. Sometimes the risk allocation needs to change. And sometimes the answer is simply: "No. We can't justify this." That doesn't mean the government is anti-investment. It means the transaction hasn't yet earned a "yes." And this is where serious transaction advisory matters. Because once a government signs a bad structure, the problem doesn't disappear. It becomes an obligation. My role isn't to make every transaction happen. It's to understand whether the transaction is worth making happen,and, when it is, help structure it so that the parties can actually stand behind it. That's the difference between facilitating a deal and architecting one. If you are working on a significant infrastructure or investment transaction and need someone willing to interrogate the structure before expensive commitments are made, that's the work I do. Mandates aren't cheap. Neither are badly structured transactions.
-
Tanya Kabuya liked thisTanya Kabuya liked this🧐🤔Algeria is placing English ahead of French in primary schools from the 2026–2027 academic year, as the country continues to reduce the long-standing dominance of French in its education system. English will begin in Year Three, while French will start in Year Four. The shift comes amid a broader decline in French influence in parts of Africa, particularly the Sahel, where countries including Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger have moved away from close political and military ties with France. French is not being completely removed from Algerian schools, but English is increasingly being promoted for science, technology and international communication. #africanfolder
Experience
-
Province of Kinshasa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Education
-
University of South Africa/Universiteit van Suid-Afrika
-
-
Undergraduate degree with specialisation in Economics and corporate finance ( financial management and management accounting)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Languages
-
French
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
English
Native or bilingual proficiency
-
Afrikaans
Limited working proficiency
Other similar profiles
Explore more posts
-
Mail & Guardian
Sponsored: Alternative investments boost the energy landscape: South Africa’s energy and infrastructure needs continue to grow, and private capital is increasingly stepping in where public funding is no longer sufficient. Prescient Investment Management’s Clean Energy & Infrastructure Debt Fund has deployed more than R6 billion into 31 projects, with over 95% invested through the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP). This approach supports a more resilient energy landscape while delivering positive long-term outcomes. From logistics and digital data centres to water, sanitation and student accommodation, Prescient is focused on funding projects that contribute to a sustainable future for South Africa. Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/e5CEQtSw #EnergyTransition #InfrastructureInvestment #PrivateCapital #CleanEnergy #ESG #SouthAfrica
-
South African Sun
South African businesses are increasingly turning to alternative funding, including private equity, venture capital and asset-based finance. With rising interest rates and slow economic growth, traditional bank lending has tightened. For SMEs, this is a crucial moment to explore diversified funding sources and strengthen financial planning for 2025.
-
African Women in Energy and Power (AWEaP)
Policy and Energy Regulations Powering the Just Energy Transition starts with understanding the rules that shape it. As part of our 3rd Limpopo cohort, delivered in partnership witH Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) and Wits Business School, this module equips energy professionals and entrepreneurs with the critical insights needed to navigate South Africa’s evolving energy landscape - from policy frameworks and market reforms to tariff setting, infrastructure investment, and regulatory design. Through our Introduction to Energy Policy and Regulation module, participants are empowered to: • Shape JET-aligned strategies, • Unlock opportunities across energy value chains, • Drive inclusive, local economic growth, • Embed gender, youth, and disability inclusion into procurement and operations. Because policy is not abstract - it is the engine that determines who participates, who benefits, and how we transition. #AWEaP #JETSkillsDevelopment #WomenInEnergy #WomenEmpowerment #ElectricityUtilities #JustEnergyTransition #EnergyPolicy
6 Comments -
The Extractor Magazine
Nasan Energies cleared to acquire Vivo Energy’s 52 fuel stations in market-shifting deal The approval, granted following a public consultation process led by the Namibia Competition Commission, clears the way for one of the largest retail fuel network transfers in recent years and positions Nasan Energies as a major new force in the country’s petroleum market. https://lnkd.in/dFSiUvPC #oil #gas Jean-Blaise OLLOMO Petrina Etuhole Mbadhi Shiraz Tobias Sean Tobias Read our magazines every Monday, Wednesday and Friday here: https://lnkd.in/dX83j-v2
-
Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA)
The Climate Finance Accelerator South Africa (CFA-SA) has launched its fourth call for proposals, inviting low-carbon businesses seeking investment to apply. CFA is a global technical assistance programme aimed at improving climate businesses and projects bankability by providing tailored capacity building and networking opportunities. Applications for CFA-SA are open until 6 February 2026. Businesses and project developers will receive tailored and fully independent advice that will help them align with investor requirements, prepare more compelling investment documentation, navigate policy and regulatory considerations, and build relationships that support outreach to potential financiers. For questions or queries, please contact: cfasouthafricanbi@green-cape.co.za Click here for more information and to apply: https://lnkd.in/eubKdRuj
-
Lephutshi
Botswana SMEs chasing funding often overlook a costly detail: banks and investors judge plans by local context, not just numbers on a page. If your business plan fails to include relevant market analysis, up-to-date Botswana economic data, or local compliance steps, your application risks a quiet no. Before your next pitch, test your plan for Botswana-specific details – it could decide your funding outcome. Save this before your next funding meeting. #SMEsBotswana #Lephutshi #BusinessPlanForInvestorsBotswana #EntrepreneurSkills Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eTv_Cx3d
-
Farai Ian Muvuti
Proud to formally announce the cooperation framework between Sankofa Capital Ltd and the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre. This is an important milestone not simply because an agreement has been signed, but because it signals a disciplined approach to capital engagement at a time when global allocation is increasingly selective. Working alongside Mr Keletsositse Olebile, Chief Executive Officer of the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre, presents a meaningful opportunity to align institutional credibility with structured investor access and long-term economic positioning. Excited for what we will build through this partnership.
-
Asset TV South Africa
In this edition of the Wealth Debrief Exchange, we discuss the world class “in-house” Old Mutual Wealth discretionary fund manager capability called Tailored Fund Portfolios and how Tailored Fund Portfolios can help financial planners: 1. Save time 2. Reduce risk 3. Grow their financial planning practices [7936]
-
Peach Payments
South Africa’s payouts landscape is changing and speed is no longer optional. Real-Time Clearance (RTC) payouts are setting a new standard: → Funds disbursed in minutes, not days → Lower transaction costs → Less manual work, more automation For businesses moving high volumes, this isn’t just an upgrade but a shift in how money moves. At Peach Payments, we’re building for that future. 👉🏽 Read more: https://hubs.la/Q047vl-L0 #PeachPayments #Fintech #Payments #RealTimePayments #SouthAfrica #ScaleWithPeach
Explore collaborative articles
We’re unlocking community knowledge in a new way. Experts add insights directly into each article, started with the help of AI.
Explore More