Grace Mugabe urges Court to discharge case against her

FIRST Lady Dr Grace Mugabe has urged the High Court to discharge an erroneous order it issued against her and her son, Mr Russel Goreraza, in a case in which they were being accused of grabbing properties belonging to a fugitive Lebanese businessman, Jamal Ahmed.

In the heads of argument filed by her lawyers Mr Wilson Manase and Mr Wellington Pasipanodya of Manase and Manase law firm at the High Court yesterday, Dr Mugabe argued that the judge was misled into issuing a "flawed" order.

The order by Justice Clement Phiri compelled Dr Mugabe, her son and Superintendent Kennedy Fero of the Zimbabwe Republic Police to vacate the properties owned by the businessman when, in actual fact, the properties were under police security as exhibits. The investigating officer Superintendent Nyambo Viera confirmed in the several cases involving Ahmed that the securitisation of the properties was a police operation and that it had nothing to do with Dr Mugabe or her son.

Ahmed's lawyers, after learning that the First family had nothing to do with the protection of the buildings, even went on to write to the police seeking eviction of the guards.

Dr Mugabe and Mr Goreraza are now seeking discharge of the December High Court order against them. "It is humbly submitted that the interim relief granted by Justice Phiri on 21st December 2016 must be discharged and in its place be recorded: 'the application be and is hereby dismissed'.

"The interim relief was directed towards the respondents who clearly are not connected to the properties in question and therefore it is misplaced and a folly for first applicant (Ahmed) to persist with the need to have a flawed order confirmed when instead it must be discharged on the return date," read the heads of argument.

The lawyers argued that the First Lady and her son never occupied the properties in question, neither did they visit the premises at any time.

"It is therefore very clear to this honourable court first and second respondents were never at any of the properties. Third respondent (Supt Fero) is in the Police Protection Unit. They are charged with protecting properties, individuals and places of interest to the police.

"It cannot therefore be said guarding these crime scenes was out of the realm of his duties," argued the lawyers.

Manase and Manase law firm challenged Ahmed's lawyers to bring their fugitive client to Zimbabwe so that he presents himself to the police.

"It is up to the lawyers to assist the State by bringing their client within the jurisdiction of this court.

"Enough information has been made available to the accused in the affidavit of Superintendent Viera for first applicant to understand what is on the table in the investigation that involves him.

"He cannot bark like a dog in the wilderness. He must come to Zimbabwe and present himself to the police. He cannot lecture the police on their operations, pretending to be upright and to be a proponent of the rule of law and human rights of Zimbabwe as a foreigner.

"He must attend CID Law and Order to answer questions," read the arguments.

It was also argued that Ahmed intentionally sued the wrong parties to malign and humiliate them.

"It is humbly submitted that first applicant wants to malign, humiliate, demonise, insult, belittle and cause other hurts against the respondents and the First family for unknown political reasons as evidenced by the smear campaign in the local and foreign media," the lawyers argued.

The matter is yet to be set down for hearing at the High Court.