admin
Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
Government decision to open up the milling sector to more players was meant to avert hunger in the country, and an attempt by millers to block free trade is ill-conceived, the High Court has ruled.
The ruling follows an urgent application by the Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe (GMAZ) last week challenging Government decision to issue import licences for maize meal and flour to other players in the milling industry allegedly excluding them.
Dismissing the GMAZ application on Wednesday, Justice Joseph Mafusire said: “Sectarian interests had to give way to the bigger threat of hunger and starvation facing the nation.”
The judge described the millers association’s application as “a dog’s breakfast” and that “it not only lacked any legal standing, but also lacked moral basis”.
GMAZ has 68 members and wanted the Government to suspend issuance of import licences to other players until the dispute was resolved in court.
Justice Mafusire noted in his judgment that GMAZ failed to counter Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development Minister Joseph Made’s strong call that the country was in drought situation.
He rebuked the millers’ association for only being concerned with the welfare of its members.
“Nothing was said about the interest of the larger body of consumers,” he said.
“If the first respondent’s (Minister Made) actions had the effect of bringing down the prices of mealie-meal and flour, something that the application unwittingly disclosed, why would a reasonable court want to stop that just because a cartel of 68 members wants to maintain its market share margins of profit?”
The association, that was being represented by lawyer Mr Tonderai Bhatasara, argued that there was a glut of maize meal on the market following Government’s decision to issue import licences to new traders.
This, it was contended, resulted in prices becoming severely depressed while the competition became unfair. The millers argued that they were forced to drastically reduce the price of grain paid to local farmers in order to remain viable.
They said the development was a threat to Zim-Asset as most farmers would abandon contract farming.
It was also GMAZ’s argument that new traders were being issued with licences to import up to 8 000 metric tonnes of genetically modified organism positive (GMO+) maize meal, yet the association members were not allowed to import the same cheap products.
It, however, failed to prove the claim. The association also wanted to be consulted before the Government issued the permits.
But the Government counter-argued that the GMAZ application was an attempt to get the court to sanction price manipulation by a privileged cartel to exclude competition for the sake of profits.
It denied that GMAZ was precluded from importing maize meal as they were free to apply for import licences.
According to Statutory Instrument 350 of 1993 (Control of Goods [Import and Export] [Agriculture]) Order, maize meal is among the list of products that can be imported through import licence.
Any person can apply.
The GMAZ argued that its rights among them, right to administrative justice as enshrined in the Constitution, was violated.
The court ruled that such argument would probably make sense in a lobbying forum like Parliament or a business convention.
Government opened up the milling sector after realising that the country’s strategic reserves were low and the millers’ association’s fears of losing its market share was manifestly inconsequential.
Online Reporter