admin
as exhibits in a case he was charged for breaching the Precious Stones Act.
Mr Chiadzwa was jailed five years and fined US$132 000 for the offence at Mutare Magistrates’ Courts last year, but the High Court four months ago, cleared him of the charges on review.
The diamonds were equivalent to 43 028 carats. After the acquittal, Mr Chiadzwa through his lawyer Mr Puwai Chiutsi of P Chiutsi and Associates, mounted an application for the release of the diamonds to him.
The diamonds, according to the application, were supposed to be surrendered to the Clerk of Court, who would possibly forward them to the Minerals’ Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe and Mr Chiadzwa would get his payment.
But Justice Francis Bere on Tuesday last week dismissed the application in his chambers, saying only the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development had the mandate to administer the diamonds and to track their movement.
He said the requests made by Mr Chiadzwa for the diamonds to be surrendered to the Clerk of Court or to him were both incompetent.
“It is clear to me that given the security risk associated with the diamonds in question, the registrar of this court cannot assume their custody given that hitherto, he never enjoyed such custody,” said Justice Bere.
“It would, therefore, not be competent for the registrar to accept such sensitive exhibits merely to pave way for the applicant to lay his claim on the diamonds.
“Secondly, I am not able to follow this request (to surrender diamonds to Mr Chiadzwa) in light of section 3 of the Precious Stones Act, which criminalises possession of these diamonds.
“To ask me to return the diamonds to the applicant would be to ask me to sanction the commission of yet another act of illegality on the part of the applicant and such order would not be competent.”
In any event, the court found, papers filed did not convince the judge that Mr Chiadzwa was entitled to the diamonds.
Justice Bere said the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development was the one responsible for the administration and movement of diamonds and that in executing its mandate, it did not require the assistance of Mr Chiadzwa. He said the business was exclusively a mandate of the ministry.
But Justice Bere expressed concern over the failure by the police to defend the case.
“None of the respondents (Commissioner General, Officer in-charge CID Minerals and Officer Commanding CID Minerals) has bothered to defend this action,” he said.
“The court naturally is concerned with the casual approach adopted by the respondents, more so given the seriousness of the allegations.
“The carefree attitude exhibited by the respondents does not help the department at all.”
Online Reporter