Mnangagwa defends State Liabilities Act

Source: Mnangagwa defends State Liabilities Act – NewsDay Zimbabwe July 27, 2016

Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa has urged the High Court to dismiss a Mutare businessman’s application seeking to declare part of the State Liabilities Act inconsistent with the country’s Constitution.

By CHARLES LAITON

In his affidavit, Mnangagwa said the attachment of government property would not only lead to chaos, but the government would become dysfunctional and as a result fail to provide essential services to its citizens.

Mnangagwa’s response followed an application by Tendai Blessing Mangwiro, who recently sought Home Affairs minister Ignatius Chombo’s incarceration for defying Justice November Mtshiya’s 14-day ultimatum, compelling him to reimburse the businessman’s $78 900, seized by the police as an exhibit sometime in 2012.

Mangwiro challenged the State Liabilities Act as being unconstitutional, claiming Chombo was reluctant to pay him while hiding behind the Act, which provides immunity against attachment of State property.

However, Mnangagwa said the businessman had other remedies to ensure he got paid, adding immunity from execution granted to State property was constitutional.

“It is submitted with due respect that the applicant (Mangwiro) still has other remedies to pursue to enforce the court order such as contempt of court proceedings . . .

Further, it is my view that the immunity granted to State property in terms of section 5 of the aforesaid Act does not prevent the execution of such judgment since it can be executed like any other judgment not sounding in money, especially the applicant who is armed with a mandamus which compels second respondent (Chombo) to pay the said debt,” the VP said.

“Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, the State Liabilities Act as read with the Public Finance Management Act and the Treasury instructions under 2500-2504, provides in detail on how debts arising from court orders are satisfied. Further, there is the Public Debt Management Act Chapter 22.21 which provides for mechanisms and strategies for the management of public debt.”

He added: “It is further submitted that the applicant should not limit himself to execution of judgment through a writ of execution . . . I also state that it is not the intention of the respondents to frustrate the applicant in seeking to enforce his judgement, but on the contrary efforts are being made to make sure that the applicant is paid.” The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 1
  • comment-avatar
    Joe Cool 6 years ago

    What is this crocodile talking about?

    The State is already dysfunctional and failing to provide essential services to its citizens – including justice, if you can’t execute a writ issued by the High Court.

    What this tells us is that the State, which is apparently about to pay off $1,8 billion, doesn’t own $78 900 to repay someone his own money, which was supposed to be held as ‘an exhibit’, and which it was illegal to make any other use of.

    These guys are real desperadoes!