A CHINESE company, China Shougang International, has taken Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) governor Gideon Gono to the Constitutional Court (Concourt) demanding the release of its money which was garnished from its Standard Chartered Bank account at the height of the country’s economic meltdown in 2007.
Report by Charles Laiton
Through its lawyer Tendai Masawi, the Chinese firm warned that Gono’s directive compelling local banks to cede their foreign currency to the central bank had the potential of straining relations between Zimbabwe and China.
The firm claims it lost $48 739,86 which was meant for the refurbishment of Ziscosteel.
The matter was initially heard by High Court judge Justice Francis Bere, who ruled that the transaction was illegal as it had not been approved by the Minister of Finance through a Government Gazette.
“The respondent (China Shougang International) came for one specific purpose in this country, that is to refurbish Ziscosteel, and taking away its money would cause serious consequences between the Chinese government and Zimbabwe,” Masawi said.
“The respondent represents the Government of the Republic of China and is supposed to be protected just like the embassies and other international firms,” he added.
Responding to Standard Chartered Bank’s appeal to the Concourt, seeking to be absolved from paying back the cash to the Chinese firm, Masawi said: “As far as the respondent is concerned, the directive by the RBZ is a nullity and the appellant (Standard Chartered) ought to have known that whatever actions it took without seeking legal advice or clarity, was acting on its own peril.”
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Advocate Adrian de Bourbon, who represented Standard Chartered Bank, however, argued that the bank complied with the RBZ directive for fear of victimisation.
“The banks were under a real threat that if they did not comply with the RBZ’s directive, adverse consequences would follow. . . because of the actions by the RBZ, rightfully or wrongly, the commercial bank does not have the money to meet the demand by the respondent,” de Bourbon said urging the court to rule in favour of his client.
The Concourt, comprising Supreme Court judges Justices Vernanda Ziyambi, Paddington Garwe and Ben Hlatshwayo, reserved judgment in the matter.
