The Sunday Mail
Britain has failed to present submissions to the European Union General Court to support extension of EU sanctions on Zimbabwe, while Harare has already filed additional papers to strengthen its case against the discredited embargo.
On June 10, the Luxembourg-based court opened to receive oral submissions in the case in which Zimbabwe is challenging the legality of sanctions imposed on 112 Zimbabweans and 11 local companies.
The hearing remained open for two weeks to allow all parties —including the EU Commission and Council, as the respondents — to make submissions.
However, it has emerged that the British government did not present any oral or documentary arguments by close of the window.
This means the court will deliver a ruling by October without input from Zimbabwe’s former colonial power, which got involved in the case after begging to be an intervener with personal interests.
Prosecutor-General Mr Johannes Tomana told The Sunday Mail that Government submitted additional material to satisfy the court that the 112 individuals on the sanctions list, some of whom have since died, were against the embargo.
The widows of national heroes Vice-President John Landa Nkomo, Dr Nathan Shamuyarira and Dr Stan Mudenge, as well as Zimbabwe Electoral Commission chief elections officer Mr Lovemore Sekeramayi, were among those who signed supporting affidavits on behalf of their spouses.
Mr Tomana said: “The intervener has not made her submissions which means the judgment will be handed out on the basis of information that has been submitted. We expect the ruling to be made three months from now. We will wait for this ruling.
“There were two requests that were made by the court. The first was that we had to submit evidence that we had the consent of all 112 individuals that are on the sanctions list to challenge the sanctions.
“Also the court wanted us to make a position on deceased people who were on the list. We then took a decision that these deceased were also against the sanctions and we have the signatures of their next of kin confirming that they want the sanctions removed.”
The EU imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe at the instigation of the anti-land reform British government in 2002 in a bid to influence the outcome of that year’s Presidential elections.
President Mugabe nonetheless went on to win those polls, and two other Presidential elections after that. The embargo bars direct EU financial aid to Zimbabwe and has seen several institutions fail to access loans.
In addition, the sanctions include an arms embargo, travel bans and an asset freeze. Interestingly, South Africa’s Former President Thabo Mbeki has since revealed that Britain was left with egg on its face when its government confided to him that they had failed to find any assets linked to President Mugabe despite sustaining a lie that the Zimbabwean leader owned properties and had bank accounts in Europe.
Government initiated the anti-sanctions case in September 2011 through a letter of demand, prompting a contemptuous response from the EU Council and Commission.
Zimbabwe subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Europeans on April 25, 2012 and the case opened last month with three judges from Sweden, Bulgaria and Greece presiding.
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa, Mr Tomana and Deputy Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet Dr Ray Ndhlukula attended the hearing.
Zimbabwe’s legal team was led by United Kingdom-based lawyers David Vaughan and Maya Lester.
Other team members included Mr Michael O’ Kane (UK), Mr Jacob Mutevedzi and Mr Gerald Mlotshwa (both Zimbabwe).
The application seeks to have the sanctions declared illegal on five primary grounds:
1) There was no legal basis for imposing sanctions on the individuals and companies associated with the Government of Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF merely on the basis of reports from faceless Internet publications and NGOs;
2) There was no legal basis for imposing sanctions on the said individuals and companies on the sole basis that they were ZANU-PF members;
3) The EU had failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for going after the said individuals and entities;
4) The EU had failed to provide particulars or evidence to the affected persons and entities in order to allow them to comment on the case against them, in particular, those cases where serious criminal misconduct was alleged;
5) The EU had infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, reputation and private and family life.
