Ex-Cottco boss loses property case
COTTON Company of Zimbabwe former chief executive officer Pious Manamike has lost in his bid to reverse the seizure of his property by the state pending the finalisation of his fraud case.
The property was seized in February last year, following an application by the Prosecutor-General in terms of the Money laundering and Proceeds of Crime act. This is a procedure that means that the property owner cannot sell or destroy the assets until the criminal case is complete.
The High Court, having reasonably believed on perusal of the papers that the property in question was tainted property and that there was a reasonable likelihood of dissipation of the property if the order were not granted, the order authorised any Investigating Officer in the employ of the Zimbabwe anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) or other law enforcement officers to search for and seize the 15 vehicles.
The vehicles belonged to Manamike although they were registered in the name of Eternal Resources (Private) limited, a company in which Manamike and his spouse were, apparently, the sole shareholders and directors.
In the present case, Manamike had approached the High Court seeking to set aside the seizure order, arguing that the order did not contain a return date on which the order was to be either confirmed or discharged.
He also complained that the order was thus irregularly granted because it took away his right to be heard before an independent and impartial court in a matter dealing with their rights to use and deal with their property.
However, Justice Benjamin Chikowere did not find merit on the application and dismissed it. The judge ruled that the fact that Manamike has not been called upon to answer the charges he is facing could not be of any consequence.
“It cannot be a proper exercise of discretion on the part of this court to interfere with the criminal investigations by setting aside the property seizure order, hence facilitating the release, dissipation and alienation of property reasonably believed to be proceeds of crime,” he said.
Justice Chikowero agreed with prosecution counsel Ms Molly Mutamangira that the order was made in terms of section 47 of the Money laundering act.
In that section or the act as a whole, there is no requirement that a property seizure order, though provisional in nature, should have a return date.
“Viewed from this perspective, the want of a return date cannot be good cause for the setting aside of the property seizure order,” ruled Justice Chikowero.
The judge pointed out that the idea behind s 47(1)(b) of the Money laundering act is that the application be made without notice to the other party.
“The giving of notice would defeat the need to obtain an order sanctioning the seizure of the property,” he said.
“The giving of notice would defeat the need to obtain an order sanctioning the seizure of the tainted property, and effecting such seizure, before the property is dissipated or alienated. It is not good cause for the setting aside of the order,” he said.
Depending on the outcome of the investigation or prosecution, the property can still be returned to Manamike.
Manamike was arrested in July 2021 last alongside former company’s development marketing manager, Maxmore Njanji on allegations of abusing Cottco resources to fund their projects.