Former National Social Security Authority (NSSA) chairman Robin Vela has come out gun blazing, accusing businessman Jayesh Shah of trying to influence court processes through a smear campaign.
Vela’s company’s company is locked in a wrangle with Shah’s Al Shams Global over a US1.82 million debt.
The former NSSA chairman said he was a guarantor for his corporate entity that owed Al Shams money and the matter is still before the courts.
Vela said there has been no court judgement on the debt claim despite claims to the contrary being made in the media and blamed Shah for the alleged distortion.
"The article, touted to several journalists over the last month, is sponsored by Jayesh Shah of Al Shams Global (Shah),” he said.
“It is factually incorrect with omissions in material aspects which include the fundamental fact that Shah does not have a court judgment in his favour for US$1.182 million.”
According to the former UK banker, Shah only disbursed a total capital amount of USD$985 000 in four batches over a period of time, of which USD$430 000 was repaid.
However, according to court records Shah wants to be repaid an additional USD$1.182 million despite collecting repayments along the way.
“The article seeks to give the impression that the provisional sentence debt claimed amount is admitted; fails to acknowledge that repayments have been made; and / or that Shah has (in his lawyers’ possession) the title deeds to a prime Harare CBD block of apartments with a dual bank accredited valuation of USD$1.8 million,” Vela said.
"The High court granted Shah the right to proceed to provisional sentence summons, dismissing Vela’s claim for a Constitutional Court referral on the material aspect of the usury / induplum rule.
“That is very different to the presumption that a judgement debt has already been determined.
“The article further vindictively seeks to imply no repayments have been made to Shah.”
He added: "The matter is still very much alive and before the courts.
“We are appealing to the Supreme Court for referral to the Constitutional Court, primarily on the seeking of clarification on the usury / induplum rule which has been topic of late when the government withheld December 2025 loan repayments to lenders for the government employee loans on the basis of the usury / induplum rule.”
Vela complained that the article was published without him being given the “right to reply” as would be expected as standard practice with ethical and professional journalism.
“Such a right would have avoided clear errors in the reporting,” he said.