Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
FOUR men, arrested in late August on allegations of illegal mining and immigration violations, have turned to the High Court seeking a provisional order to challenge their detention.
Represented by lawyer Mr Changamire Makove of Madzima and Company Law Chambers, the quartet argues that its incarceration at Harare Remand Prison breaches constitutional rights.
The four, Li Hui (49), Liu Kai (38), Li Huajian (40) and Liao Guobing (52), who entered Zimbabwe on valid tourist visas, were apprehended on August 27, accused of engaging in alluvial mining without permits.
Brought before the Mutoko Magistrates Court on August 29, the mining charge was admitted for bail by consent, while a second charge related to employment without permits was dismissed. Bail conditions required they surrender of their passports.
On September 1, immigration officials rearrested the four under a warrant issued by Tatenda Mandizvidza, an immigration official at Nyamapanda Border Post, alleging they lacked valid travel documents.
According to the application, despite explaining that their passports were held by the court, the applicants were detained.
No reasons for the detention were provided at the time, prompting an urgent chamber application for judicial relief.
The High Court filing on Friday challenges the legality of the warrant, citing procedural deficiencies and the absence of a conviction on the mining charge.
The applicants argue that prohibited mining does not constitute employment under immigration law, undermining the warrant’s basis.
They seek an interim order nullifying the warrant, barring its enforcement, and securing their release.
The applicants also question sections of the Immigration Act and Regulations used to justify the arrest, alleging inconsistencies with constitutional guarantees of liberty and the presumption of innocence.
The respondents, including the Chief Immigration Officer, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Attorney General, are expected to oppose the application. If they fail, the matter will proceed unopposed on the date yet to be set.
