|Buyanga challenges AG’s lawsuit|
|Saturday, 24 March 2012 21:09|
Responding to the AG Office’s application of March 1, in which the State sought to bar Buyanga from selling properties of defaulting debtors pending the outcome of an investigation into suspected irregularities, Nyika Legal Practitioners said the police affidavit ignored some crucial facts, bringing its credibility into question.
Buyanga and the property firm were involved in illegal money lending, fraudulent agreements of sale of immovable properties, creation of fraudulent powers of attorney and forging Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) capital gains tax clearance certificates.
However, in a notice of opposition filed last week, Buyanga’s lawyers challenged the application, saying there was even no need for their client to be cited as the first respondent in the matter as it was common knowledge that Buyanga had resigned as director of Hamilton Property Holdings in 2010.
“Taking into account that the first respondent resigned as a director of the second respondent (Hamilton), then the logic why the applicant decided to sue the first respondent in the matter has escaped us. Why, for example, has the applicant decided to cite the first respondent instead of the correct office bearers of the second respondent?
“To make matters worse, nothing has been placed on record to suggest that despite the first respondent’s resignation from office, he has continued to deal with the immovable properties registered in the second respondent’s portfolio.
In his own affidavit, Buyanga said the legal costs he had incurred in opposing the “ill-advised” application from the AG’s Office could have been avoided, adding that the applicant had also erred in asking the court to grant an interdict with costs.
He said the allegations levelled against him in the application, which included illegal money lending, tax evasion and illegal property transfers, were defamatory.
“After reading the affidavit, one cannot sift the cogent facts from the speculation and suspicion. We all know that one cannot prove a case from a multitude of suspicion. What is currently before the court leaves a lot to be desired and the affidavit is wanting, thereby placing the office of the Attorney-General into disrepute.”
Buyanga’s lawyers also denied that their client was a fugitive from justice, pointing out that the AG’s application was not an application for his extradition.
“He is a law-abiding citizen who is proud to be Zimbabwean and, in a small way, has contributed towards the economic development of Zimbabwe.”
They said, for instance, Chief Supt Majuta never interviewed any Zimra official, adding that the conclusions made by the police officer were not supported by the facts.
The various bank statements annexed to the affidavit as presumed proof of illegal business transactions, did not confirm that there was any offence that was committed by Buyanga or people who made deposits into his bank accounts.
“The evidence in question has not been confirmed and/or corroborated, yet the applicant is before the court using the same evidence as the roots of the application,” said the lawyers, further submitting that the applicant wanted to import criminal law into a matter which was essentially civil in its outlook.
or the second respondent’s part.
“Instead of presenting the full picture, (Chief Supt) Majuta went out of his way to paint a picture of the commission of criminal offences. The alleged criminal offences according to (Chief Supt) Majuta were committed by the first and second respondent.
Honourable Justice Mutema and Honourable Justice Patel.
Buyanga also denied that he changed his name from Frank Tawanda Buyanga to Frank Buyanga Sadiqi to evade arrest or to commit more crimes, saying if he had wanted to do so, he would have dropped the names Frank and Buyanga altogether.
interdict application is launched and simultaneously I have become an international criminal.
“If I was on the international wanted list, then why was I never arrested by the Zimbabwean police in order to give effect to the Interpol warrant?”