News / National
Chinese national sues Zimbabwean magistrate for being biased
07 Jul 2015 at 20:25hrs | Views
A disgruntled Chinese foreign national facing charges of fraud involving $10,5 million has sued the magistrate presiding over the case for bias and refusal to recuse himself.
Zhou Haixi, who is involved in a fraud case over shareholding in a Chinhoyi gold mine, approached the High Court with a review application seeking an acquittal on the charges.
He accused the magistrate, Never Katiyo of refusing to recuse himself from the case when there is abundant evidence that he is not impartial.
Haixi faces charges of misrepresenting to the Zimbabwe Investment Authority (ZIA) in May 2013 that Shoaling Chen and Xiandiong Chen had resigned from Wenzhou Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd, selling their 49 percent shares in Eldorado Mine at Hunyani Farm in Chinhoyi.
By means of this alleged misrepresentation, ZIA issued an amended investment license 001877 on the 5th of July 2013 which excluded Shoaling Chen and Xiandong Chen from Wenzhou Enterprises shareholding, resulting in the two losing US$10,5 million.
In his High Court application, Haixi alleged that he was once arrested in Chinhoyi for theft of a motor vehicle, and while in custody at Chinhoyi remand prison, he was approached by a fellow prison inmate to see one, Movement Mavhengere who sought a US$3500 bribe for onward transmission to the presiding magistrate, Katiyo.
Haixi allegedly instructed his companion to give Mavhengere the money after informing the police who set a trap.
Mavhengere was allegedly later arrested for the offence and the matter is pending.
Haixi added that the refusal by the magistrate to recuse himself paints a dark picture to the concept of justice and that this will justify a superior court to interfere by way of review as the decision has led to serious miscarriage of justice.
He is seeking an order setting aside the dismissal of an application for discharge, an acquittal on the charges, the transfer of the proceedings to the regional court for trial before a different magistrate.
Magistrate Katiyo however argued that there is no justification for a judicial disqualification or recusal, saying the allegations against Mavhengere were unknown to him and the police had never summoned him for questioning and he regarded the application as mischievous and contemptuous having brought about as a result of lack of sound advice from Haixi's legal counsel.
Zhou Haixi, who is involved in a fraud case over shareholding in a Chinhoyi gold mine, approached the High Court with a review application seeking an acquittal on the charges.
He accused the magistrate, Never Katiyo of refusing to recuse himself from the case when there is abundant evidence that he is not impartial.
Haixi faces charges of misrepresenting to the Zimbabwe Investment Authority (ZIA) in May 2013 that Shoaling Chen and Xiandiong Chen had resigned from Wenzhou Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd, selling their 49 percent shares in Eldorado Mine at Hunyani Farm in Chinhoyi.
By means of this alleged misrepresentation, ZIA issued an amended investment license 001877 on the 5th of July 2013 which excluded Shoaling Chen and Xiandong Chen from Wenzhou Enterprises shareholding, resulting in the two losing US$10,5 million.
Haixi allegedly instructed his companion to give Mavhengere the money after informing the police who set a trap.
Mavhengere was allegedly later arrested for the offence and the matter is pending.
Haixi added that the refusal by the magistrate to recuse himself paints a dark picture to the concept of justice and that this will justify a superior court to interfere by way of review as the decision has led to serious miscarriage of justice.
He is seeking an order setting aside the dismissal of an application for discharge, an acquittal on the charges, the transfer of the proceedings to the regional court for trial before a different magistrate.
Magistrate Katiyo however argued that there is no justification for a judicial disqualification or recusal, saying the allegations against Mavhengere were unknown to him and the police had never summoned him for questioning and he regarded the application as mischievous and contemptuous having brought about as a result of lack of sound advice from Haixi's legal counsel.
Source - zbc
