Online Reporter
The National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe (NPAZ) has expanded its asset recovery operations from Harare to several provinces as part of efforts to strengthen the fight against economic crime. Our Reporter NYORE MADZIANIKE spoke to Prosecutor-General JUSTICE LOYCE MATANDA-MOYO about the rollout of the initiative.
******************
Q: Can you briefly outline the rationale behind decentralising the NPAZ’s asset recovery unit to all provinces?
A: The decision to decentralise asset recovery stems from the need to bring justice services closer to the people, enhance efficiency in handling criminal asset matters and ensure that ill-gotten wealth is swiftly and effectively recovered across the country.
Centralisation in Harare had become a bottleneck, delaying justice and creating logistical and administrative challenges.
Decentralisation empowers provincial structures and enhances access to justice, in line with constitutional values.
Q: What key challenges prompted the implementation of this new asset recovery strategy?
A: Key challenges included case backlog in Harare, limited reach of asset recovery interventions, resource constraints and the increasing complexity of financial crimes in provinces. The lack of provincial-level capacity often led to delays and potential loss or dissipation of assets.
The 2025 NPAZ Strategic Plan addresses these challenges by capacitating provincial courts and prosecutors to act swiftly and decisively in their respective provinces.
Q: How does the current asset recovery strategy differ from the previous national approach, particularly regarding centralisation in Harare?
A: Previously, all matters had to be filed and processed through the Harare High Court, which led to delays and logistical burdens.
The new approach allows provinces with permanent High Courts to handle asset recovery cases locally, using dedicated teams and local court infrastructure.
This decentralised model accelerates case processing, reduces travel costs and enhances stakeholder collaboration at provincial levels.
Q: What measures have been taken to ensure consistency in implementation across different provinces and court stations?
A: Standard operating procedures (SOPs) have been developed and disseminated across all provincial offices.
Regular training, peer review mechanisms and oversight from the Asset Forfeiture Unit ensure uniform application of the law.
Furthermore, the Prosecutor-General’s Office conducts quarterly audits and convenes review meetings to monitor and align provincial practices with national standards.
Q: How have specialised prosecutors been identified and trained for asset recovery cases in the provinces with permanent High Courts?
A: A skills audit was conducted to identify prosecutors with financial crime and asset recovery experience.
Identified personnel underwent targeted training in asset tracing, financial investigations and drafting preservation and forfeiture orders, in collaboration with partners such as the police, the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and international entities.
Continuous professional development is ongoing to enhance expertise.
The authority has also initiated a programme in which senior officers provide mentorship to junior officers.
Q: Can you elaborate on how preservation orders are being utilised at early stages to prevent dissipation of criminal assets?
A: Preservation orders are now sought as soon as investigators identify assets suspected to be linked to criminal conduct.
These orders freeze the assets pending further investigations and court proceedings.
Early preservation curtails the risk of asset concealment, disposal or transfer, and ensures that property remains available for potential forfeiture.
Q: What processes follow after the issuance of a preservation order until a final forfeiture order is obtained?
A: Once a preservation order is granted, the asset remains frozen while the prosecution prepares a civil forfeiture application.
During this period, the accused or third parties may respond.
The court then considers whether the asset is proceeds of crime or an instrumentality thereof. If satisfied, the court issues a forfeiture order, transferring ownership to the State.
Q: In cases arising from provinces without a permanent High Court, how are asset recovery matters being handled to avoid overburdening Harare?
A: Such cases are coordinated through circuit High Courts or through assigned judges visiting those provinces.
Additionally, virtual hearings are being employed to mitigate delays.
The NPAZ liaises with the Judicial Service Commission to ensure scheduling efficiency and timely adjudication of these matters.
Q: To what extent has decentralising asset recovery reduced congestion in the superior courts, particularly in Harare?
A: Since decentralisation, there has been a marked decline in the number of asset recovery applications filed solely in Harare.
Over 40 percent of such matters are now initiated and finalised in the provinces, relieving Harare’s courts and enabling quicker case turnarounds. This has significantly reduced procedural congestion and improved docket management.
Q: What has been the response or feedback from provincial prosecutors and other stakeholders regarding the new structure?
A: The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Provincial prosecutors have welcomed the empowerment and capacity development, while the Judiciary has appreciated the reduced burden and enhanced efficiency.
Stakeholders have noted improved inter-agency coordination and quicker resolution of matters involving illicit assets.
Q: Could you provide statistics comparing the number of preservation and forfeiture orders issued before and after this strategy was implemented?
A: Prior to decentralisation (2023-2024), approximately 45 preservation orders and 18 forfeiture orders were issued nationally, mostly from Harare.
Since rollout in early 2025, over 110 preservation orders and 55 forfeiture orders have been secured, with more than half originating from provincial High Courts.
Q: How many cases involving asset recovery have been successfully concluded since the rollout of the strategy?
A: As of June 2025, Bulawayo had 12 cases; Masvingo (eight); Mutare (nine); Gweru (six); Chinhoyi (seven) Harare (18), down from previous dominance of over 90 percent.
These figures reflect a positive shift in national capacity distribution.
Q: What percentage of total national asset recovery cases are now being handled outside Harare, and how does this reflect the success of the strategy?
A: Currently, 61 percent of asset recovery cases are being handled outside Harare.
This marks a substantial decentralisation of prosecutorial power and demonstrates the effectiveness of the new strategy in widening the reach of justice and improving operational efficiency.
Q: Kindly share data on the total estimated value of criminal assets that have been preserved or forfeited?
A: Since January 2025, criminal assets worth approximately ZiG3,2 billion (about US$110 million) have been preserved, and assets valued at ZiG 1,7 billion (about US$58 million) have been forfeited to the State.
These include luxury vehicles, commercial properties, farms and cash.
This data underlines our commitment to fighting economic crime and ensuring proceeds of crime are returned to the public good.
