Is Jumia truly an African firm?

What you need to know:

The online company has prerogative to call itself a local entity.

Remember this banger: Everybody’s talking all this stuff about me, Why don’t they just let me live, I don’t need permission, make my own decision, that’s my prerogative. (Bobby Brown, 1988). The song pretty much summed up my thoughts after binge-reading articles on why Jumia is not African enough.

No doubt, the controversy brought a lot of heat. And in a way, the pushback was justified. If it generates 98 percent of its revenue from Africa, why is the majority of its African-based employees (92 percent) only rank and file – running warehouse facilities? If it’s truly African, why is its upper echelons “officed” outside the continent; Portugal, Germany and Dubai?

And why incorporate in Germany? Was Mauritius not good enough? Or is it a way to shield the management from civil liability from African laws? Note: Awards of punitive damages in actions brought from Africa or elsewhere are generally not enforceable in Germany.

But call it what you want; cultural appropriation, genius marketing or whatever else, Jumia has the prerogative to identify as African. Here are my two cents.

One, philosophically, the issue presents plenty of challenges. How is the African identity constructed? And who allots this Africa-ness and why? For instance, if African countries such as Sudan, Morocco or Egypt become the Delaware-equivalent and international companies targeting Africa chose to incorporate there, would they be less African because the natives in these countries identify mostly as Arabs?

And if Sacha and Jeremy acquired African citizenship or if they chose to re-domicile the business to an African jurisdiction, would Jumia’s identity suddenly be viewed differently? And if Africa’s corporate identity is solely judged on the basis of origin and control, how do we deal with white South Africans? Not a simple matter.

Two, logically, arguments against have been somewhat inconsistent.

Let me illustrate. Africa’s largest company, Naspers, owns the biggest share (31 percent) in Tencent, the Chinese internet giant best known known for its Facebook-equivalent (WeChat app).

But does Tencent hold itself as an African company? No, it’s a “fully-blooded” Chinese company.

Similarly, Softbank, a Japanese investment group, holds the biggest stake in Uber (20 percent). But does Uber hold itself as a Japanese company? No. It’s a proud American company.

Now, why is Jumia not “proudly African” when in fact, its majority shareholder is African? A third of its stock is held by MTN Group. Why is it not African when one-half of the founding quartet are sons of the soil?

And how is it less African when its intellectual property, including copyrights and proprietary technology, is registered in South Africa?

Three, diagnostically, Jumia’s problem appears mis-framed.

I think the problem is less an identity issue than an inclusivity/diversity one (although the two can be closely linked).

Only three members of its 11-member management board are of African descent. Fewer African developers form part of their core technical team.

In closing, my parting shot draws from the wisdom of one of greatest sons of the land, Kwame Nkrumah.

He said: “I am not African because I was born in Africa but because Africa was born in me.”