A ruling by the Mutoko Magistrates Court, which overturned a ban on mining operations in the Manyuchi River, is facing a formal legal challenge on the grounds that the court overstepped its jurisdiction.
The controversy stems from an order issued by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) halting mining activities by Emmanuel Ndemera in the Manyuchi River, a critical water source for hundreds of villagers in the Makaha area. EMA stated its investigation found Ndemera in violation of his Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence, which prohibits mining within 250 meters of the river.
In response, Ndemera successfully petitioned the Mutoko Magistrates Court, which granted an order allowing him to resume operations.
The legal validity of that order is now being contested. Lawyers for Zhangveng Syndicate, a Chinese mining firm that had initially reported Ndemera's activities to authorities, have formally notified the EMA that the magistrate's decision is "defective."
In a letter to the agency, Zhangveng's lawyer, Admire Rubaya, argued that a Magistrates Court lacks the legal authority to review decisions made by statutory bodies like the EMA.
"A Magistrates Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain review applications or to set aside the decisions of a statutory body such as the Environmental Management Agency. This is a function reserved for the High Court," the letter stated.
Keep Reading
- Byo author eyes SA award
- WB revises downwards Zim growth
- Letters: Zanu PF to blame for anything wrong in Zim
- Shortages show the poverty of ideas in govt
The legal counsel urged the EMA to challenge the ruling in the High Court, warning that failure to do so would undermine the agency's regulatory mandate.
"The granting of such an Order effectively undermines the statutory mandate and authority of the EMA as conferred by the Environmental Management Act," Rubaya wrote. "Allowing this Order to stand creates a dangerous precedent that could be exploited to circumvent your crucial regulatory work."
The letter concluded by offering the agency any further assistance from their client and emphasizing the urgency of the matter to preserve the integrity of environmental protection laws.
The EMA has not yet publicly indicated its next course of action.