Maguwu’s property seizure unlawful: Court

Maguwu’s laptop computer, US$2 000, power pack, wallet, digital camera, business and bank cards when he was about to leave for a human rights conference in Ireland.
Mr Maguwu, who is director for Centre for Research and Development, failed to continue with his journey after the encounter with the CIO.
Justice Nicholas Mathonsi directed the Minister of State for National Security in the President’s Office to return the seized items to Mr Maguwu.
The judgment was handed on Wednesday.
“It is ordered that the seizure of the applicant’s property by the State agents operating under the fifth respondent be and is hereby declared wrongful, unlawful and unjustified,” said Justice Mathonsi.
“The fifth respondent and those acting for him be and are hereby directed to return the items seized from the applicant, namely Hp 625 laptop, power pack, wallet, Olympus digital camera, US$2 000, business cards, bank cards, notebooks, laptop bag and all its contents to the applicant.”
Justice Mathonsi said the manner in which the agents who did not identify themselves, was not only arbitrary but also “over-handed” conducted the search.
“If you are to deprive an individual of his property, it is a basic tenet of our law that he must be informed of the reasons for doing so and the law under which such deprivation is being done,” said the judge.
“I conclude therefore that the seizure of the applicant’s property was unlawful.
“In doing so I am fortified by the fact that more than a year after his property was seized on suspicion of subversiveness, no charges have been preferred against him and no other action has been taken against him by the State.”
Lawyers representing the minister denied claims that the officers seized Mr Maguwu’s laptop, cash, power pack, digital camera, business cards and bank cards.
They however, admitted that the operatives took receipts, travel insurance policy and some bank papers which have since been returned to the owner. But the court found that the State security ministry was not being truthful.
The minister argued that Mr Maguwu was searched because he was suspected of possessing information that threatens the security of the country.
It was also submitted that Mr Maguwu, despite being a well-known human rights defender, was also strongly opposed to the selling of the country’s wealth like diamonds.
The court heard that there was reasonable apprehension that Mr Maguwu was in possession of subversive material, which he intended to deliberate on his excursion to Dublin, Ireland.
It was also argued that the department of State Security did not operate under any statute and therefore the operatives could not identify any law under which the search and seizure was conducted.