March 26 deadline for State in diamond case

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
The High Court on Tuesday gave the National Prosecuting Authority up to March 26 to finalise with the South African government on the manner the court will conduct an inspection in loco in the US$2 billion fraud case involving Core Mining and Mineral Resources director Lovemore Kurotwi and former Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation chief executive Dominic Mubaiwa.
Kurotwi and Mubaiwa are accused of misrepresenting to Government that Core Mining was a special purpose vehicle for a renowned mining giant BSGR, prompting the State to sign a joint venture agreement with an undeserving company.

Government later discovered that Core Mining had nothing to do with BSGR and that it did not have the required money to finance the operations of a joint venture firm, Canadile Miners.

As a result of the said misrepresentation, Government claims it suffered US$2 billion business loss.
Justice Chinembiri Bhunu yesterday deferred the case to March 26.

Chief Law officer Mr Mutangadura told court that the South African government was yet to respond to his letter on the manner in which the inspection in loco would be conducted.

He said the defence team contributed to the delay by making separate inquiries on the same issue through the South African embassy complicating the whole issue.

During trial Mr Mutangadura successfully applied for an inspection-in-loco to be conducted at Pikwane Diamonds in South Africa where the ZMDC committee members were received during a due diligence exercise in 2009.

Kurotwi and Mubaiwa are fighting to block the trip.
The NPA got South Africa’s approval to conduct an inspection in loco end of last year and suggested January 15 and 16 this year as the dates for the inspection.

Last month Mr Mutangadura told court that the State was ready to visit South Africa for an inspection in loco that had been set down for January 15 and 16.

He said the chief magistrate of South Africa would be leading the team to the target areas but the court wanted to know if the idea does not equate the High Court to a magistrates’ court.