Globally speaking, our universe is an intricate layout of laws guiding the relationship of man with fellow humans, man with governments, and governments with governments.

Often overlooked in this regulatory interconnectivity that defines our civilization are laws which guide the relationships between corporate entities and the society. In almost all countries of the world, there are corporate affairs commissions through which governments regulate, in varying degrees, the affairs of corporate bodies. Consumer protection councils are instituted to protect citizens from economic and financial exploitations.

These bodies, and others with similar regulatory oversight functions are essentially the guardians of our corporate galaxy. When they fail in their duties of corporate governance, anarchy ensues. And for many African countries, this is the stark reality.

The mindset of most multinationals operating in Africa is that anything goes. Thus, it is commonplace to circumvent existing laws guiding their operations without any repercussion. This scenario perfectly describes the borderline criminal adventures of telecoms giant, Vodacom in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It all started in 2001 when Vodacom made entry into the DRC market. By then, Congo Wireless Network (CWN) which was established in 1997 had secured the first telecommunications 2G license. A shareholding agreement was struck between the two parties based on CWN providing the 2G license and Vodacom delivering its expertise and the equipment to make the venture profitable

However, in the past 15 years, Vodacom has only registered losses and never paid out a dividend to its shareholders. Vodacom has however during this period made money from loan repayments provided to recapitalise the business. And in 2010, CWN also accused Vodacom of allegedly taking out $200m out of the DRC using fraudulent means.

Apart from being denied access to the companies financials which it has a right to as a minority shareholder, CWN had also accused Vodacom International of "opaque management" resulting in a deficit of $600 million since 2005.

Complaining about this "opaque management", CWN has sought and received a court order designating an expert to conduct an audit of the financial statements of the company of Vodacom DRC telecommunications on the eleven years of activities.

Rather than obey that order, Vodacom allegedly falsified its own order and presented the exact same notice from the same court, and the same judge indicating that the action was denied by the court. Naturally, CWN approached the court to establish that Vodacom’s counter-order is fraudulent.

That case is currently in court with judgment scheduled to be rendered on 13 October. Curiously, Vodacom has requested that all media be barred from the court and all photographs, notes, and recordings be destroyed, for the duration of the proceedings and that any media attending in their personal capacity be barred from reporting.

At this stage, one begins to wonder what Vodacom has to hide by requesting that the media be barred from a court case of this magnitude.

If indeed its books are clean and CWN’s allegations are baseless, why has Vodacom refused to agree to have its account audited as ordered by the court in DR Congo? Why has it allegedly gone as far as falsifying a court order to stop this audit from happening? What are the relevant regulatory bodies in DR Congo doing about this case to ensure that justice is served?

Recall that this is not the first time that Vodacom has run into controversy in the DR Congo. In 2012, a political fixer, Moto Mabanga, sued Vodacom for R396 million relating to work he claimed to have done for the company.

According to the consultancy agreements between Vodacom and Namemco Energy, Mabanga was tasked with advising Vodacom on economic, sociopolitical and security conditions in the DRC, providing advice and assistance on ‘government relations issues” in the country, and securing visas for Vodacom staff to enter the DRC.

After the job was done, Vodacom refused to pay Mabanga his contractual dues. In January this year, the court in Kinshasa awarded a reduced claim of $21 million to Mabanga, against which Vodacom lodged an appeal for a stay of execution. The appeal was dismissed. Vodacom eventually settled with the fixer out of court. In the region of R159 million.

That case and this has shown Vodacom’s lack of respect for the DRC’s judicial system and penchant for circumventing and not honouring contracts. This is typical of so many other multinationals operating on the African continent. In 2015, the Nigerian Communications Commission issued telecom giant MTN Nigeria a record $5.2 billion fine for non-compliance with a deadline set by the commission to disconnect all non-registered SIM cards.

And in November 2015 Nigeria’s National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control fined Guinness $5 million over expired raw materials.

For Africa to fulfill its enormous economic potentials, the law will have to mean something other than words on paper. The laws governing corporate entities should be adhered to by all concerned parties and failure to do so should attract way more than a slap on the wrist.

Vodacom’s misadventures in the DRC has made a mockery of that country’s financial, economic and judicial processes. The Congolese Wireless Network as a minority shareholder in what should have been a profitable business partnership has been left chasing shadows.

As we approach judgment day, global attention will be on the DRC with the hope that justice is done.

*Patrick Obiwei is a Kenya based business consultant. He wrote this piece from Nairobi.