Maravi

(HERALD) Newman Chiadzwa demands seized equipment

Newman Chiadzwa demands seized equipment
Wednesday, 16 May 2012 00:00
Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter

BUSINESSMAN Mr Newman Chiadzwa has filed a High Court application claiming back his excavator (front-end loader), tipper truck and other equipment seized by the police from his homestead near the Chiadzwa mine fields in Marange three years ago.

The police stated in their papers that the equipment was seized because it was linked to the offence Mr Chiadzwa was facing under the Precious Stones Act.

But Mr Chiadzwa argues that the seizure of the property after his arrest had nothing to do with the criminal case.

Mr Chiadzwa contends that he was arrested in 2006 for the offence of buying diamonds. He, however, argued that the seized excavator, tipper truck, jig machine, a 5 000 litre water tank and toolbox could not be used to buy diamonds as alleged.

He added that he has since been acquitted of the said charges and that there was no basis for the police to continue holding on to the property.

In an application filed at the High Court early this year, Mr Chiadzwa is seeking the release of the property saying it was suffering wear and tear at an open space at the diamond base in Chiadzwa.

Mr Chiadzwa stated in his affidavit that on July 27, 2009, police officers in the company of some soldiers went to his homestead and demanded to enter into the premises.

They searched the premises before seizing an unregistered Massey Ferguson front-end loader, Toyota tipper truck (registration number 315 152), toolbox with an assortment of tools, 5 000 litre water tank and a jig machine.

Mr Chiadzwa indicated that the police officers did not give an explanation for the removal of the property.

Efforts by Mr Chiadzwa to recover the property were fruitless as the police advised him to write a formal letter for the release of the property.

The police, according to Mr Chiadzwa, did not respond to the application prompting him to file the High Court application.

“I contend that the respondents (police) have no lawful basis to confiscate my property. I have not been charged with any criminal offence in respect of my possession of the property and neither was it being used for any unlawful activity.

“I have ascertained that my property is suffering wear and tear as it is outside in the open sun at the diamond base. It has deteriorated in value significantly from the time of its confiscation,” said Mr Chiadzwa.

On behalf of the police, the commander at the diamond base, Mr Crypos Misi, denied that the police forcibly entered Mr Chiadzwa’s premises saying they politely asked for permission.

He stated in his opposing affidavit that the police did not seize the toolbox and that the other seized property was linked to the Precious Stones charges Mr Chiadzwa was facing.

Mr Misi defended the police actions saying everything was above board.

“The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act empowers the police to seize articles on reasonable grounds believed to be concerned with the commission of an offence. The police actions in this respect were above board.

“Applicant was arrested for contravening Section 3(1) of the Precious Stones Act Chapter 21:06 as read with Section 3 (a) of the Amendment Act Number 10/2007 after he was found in possession of 8,4kg of diamonds.

“He was sentenced to five years in jail and was ordered to pay US$132 750,” the police say.

In his answering affidavit, Mr Chiadzwa described the police’s defence as ridiculous and irrational.

“The allegations I was facing were that I was buying diamonds from unlicensed miners. Can I possibly buy diamonds with a tractor, front-end loader, tipper truck and water tank? This is so ridiculous.

“In any event, these items were never booked as exhibits in connection with the offence I was arrested for at all. Most importantly, I was acquitted of those charges.

“I was arrested on October 14, 2006, almost three years before the items were collected. There is absolutely no connection between my arrest and this matter (property matter)”.

The case is yet to be set down for hearing as an opposed matter at the High Court.

Labels: CHIADZWA, MINING, NEWMAN CHIADZWA

posted by MrK @ 2:05 PM