Criminal justice system infiltrated, court reverses ban on river mining

A Mutoko magistrate has come under fire after controversially reversing a decision by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) that had halted environmentally harmful mining operations along the Manyuchi River in Makaha - a vital water source for hundreds of villagers.

Legal experts have condemned the ruling, arguing that the magistrate acted outside their jurisdiction. According to environmental and legal practitioners, only the High Court is empowered to review or overturn decisions made by statutory bodies such as the EMA.

The dispute stems from a complaint lodged by Chinese mining company Zhangveng Syndicate, which reported fellow miner Emmanuel Ndemera for allegedly using hazardous chemicals such as cyanide in his operations along the river. The company said its action was motivated by corporate social responsibility to protect the Makaha community, which depends on the river for domestic use and agriculture.

Following an investigation, EMA found that Ndemera had breached the conditions of his Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) licence by conducting mining activities too close to the river. The agency subsequently barred him from operating until he complied with all EIA requirements.

However, Ndemera, who allegedly claims to be politically connected and "untouchable," quickly approached the Mutoko Magistrates Court and secured an order allowing him to resume mining.

Zhangveng Syndicate's legal representative, Admire Rubaya, has since challenged the validity of that ruling, insisting that the magistrate overstepped legal boundaries.

"A Magistrates Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain review applications or to set aside the decisions of a statutory body such as the Environmental Management Agency. This is a function reserved for the High Court," Rubaya stated in a letter to EMA.

He further warned that the magistrate's decision "effectively undermines the statutory mandate and authority" of EMA as established by the Environmental Management Act.

Rubaya urged EMA to take "immediate and decisive action" by filing a High Court review to have the Mutoko Magistrate's decision set aside.

"Given the substantive nature of the order as a review of an administrative action, your agency is well within its rights to seek correction through the High Court," he said.

The lawyers also cautioned that failure to challenge the decision could set a dangerous legal precedent, enabling other miners to bypass environmental laws and regulatory oversight.

"The integrity of environmental protection laws and the authority of your agency are at stake," the letter warned. "Allowing this order to stand creates a dangerous precedent that could be exploited to circumvent your crucial regulatory work."

Zhangveng Syndicate has also offered to assist EMA's legal team in pursuing the matter, emphasising that the outcome will be critical for safeguarding environmental governance and the rights of affected communities in Makaha.