HARARE, Jan 22 (NewsDayLive)- The Rainbow Tourism Group Limited (RTG)'s bid to stop the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) from searching the hotelier's office for evidence of possible money laundering activities has been dismissed by the High Court for lack of merit.
ln its application for review before Justice Samuel, the RTG had cited Harare magistrate Dennis Mangosi who issued the warrant of search and seizure, and Zacc officers Chrispen Kabaza, Chapwanya, Zimunhu and Zacc as respondents.
According to the hotelier, the warrant of search was based on the contravention of a non-existent section of the Exchange Control Act, which is section 4 (1) (a) (ii) of the Exchange Control Act (Chapter 22:05).
RTG argued that magistrate Mangosi grossly misdirected himself in that he granted a warrant that seeks to seize a payroll, employment contracts as well as payments made to the hotel group's executives section 8 (2) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act (Chapter 9:24).
The RTG argued that it is unreasonable to suggest that salaries to executives are viewed as proceeds of crime.
The RTG added that the warrant was issued against a non-existent entity when it was issued to Rainbow Tourism Group instead of Rainbow Tourism Group Limited which they argue makes the warrant defective, vague, and embarrassing .
According to the court papers on January 11, last year Mangosi issued the warrant of search based on an application made by Zacc officers.
The allegations were that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the chief executive officer or any other person in authority at RTG head office was in possession or in control of the documents required as exhibits in the criminal docket.Zacc wanted access to thedocuments for the purpose of investigating a case of money laundering as defined in Section 8(2) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act Chapter 09:24 and or illegal dealings in foreign currency as defined in section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05].
- ‘Redesigned’ RTG pays out hefty dividend... shareholders in line for $380m as profit shoots 1 000%
- RTG lifts profit as tourists troop back
- Tourism seeks revolving fund facility to bolster recovery
- Travelling and Touring: Taming traffic jungle is paramount
Keep Reading
The court heard that armed with the warrant for search and seizure, the Zacc officers visited RTG’s office where they sought to execute the warrant.
The search and seizure warrant specified that persons in authority at Rainbow Tourism Group were to hand over to Zacc officers certified documents of payrolls of the Rainbow Tourism Group top executive officers, their employment contracts and any other supporting paperwork for any payments made.
But RTG officials refused to cooperate saying the warrant did not name any suspects and further contended that it is a corporate entity that is expected to comply with corporate governance requirements which include the auditing of financial statements by external auditors , and hence the allegations are unfounded.
RTG lawyer advocate Thembinkosi Magwaliba argued that the actions of Zacc officers amounts to a witch hunt and strongly believes that they did not have any evidence to prove any of the alleged offences saying the decision taken by Mangosi was unprocedural and unfair.
However, Zacc officers opposed the application saying RTG failed to set out a basis for setting aside the decision by Mangosi denying that it was a fishing expedition.
They insisted that the required documents are for assisting in investigations related to money laundering activities allegedly taking place at the RTG’s premises.
They also argued that they have a constitutional mandate to ensure that cases of money laundering and corruption are investigated.
High Court judge justice Deme said from the warrant, it is clear that the search and seizure will be restricted to the head office of the RTG at the address specified in the warrant and the address has not been disputed.
"The names of the persons to be searched have been clearly identified. It has not been disputed that they are the employees of the applicant. To this end, the argument that the warrant is wide in its scope lacks any foundation.
"In my opinion, the issue of the previous warrant is irrelevant at this stage. The applicant must concentrate on the merits or otherwise of the warrant which is before me. In the absence of further evidence of the previous warrant, I see no merit in its argument especially in light of the fact that the offences in the two warrants are different," Justice Deme ruled.
