Chiadzwa mounts legal bid demanding $100 million for diamonds seized from him

By Tatenda Mabasa | Nehanda Mutare Bureau |

MUTARE – Controversial businessman and diamond dealer Newman Chiadzwa, has mounted a new legal battle demanding full compensation for ‘his’ 8,67 kg of diamonds that were seized from him at the height of diamond rush in 2007.

Chiadzwa argues that the 43 028, 20 carats of diamonds were worth at least $100 million at the time of his arrest. The gems were held as exhibits in a case he was charged for breaching the Precious Stones Act.

Chiadzwa was jailed for five years and fined $132 000 for the offence by a Mutare court in 2010, but the High Court later acquitted him on review. Since his acquittal, the maverick businessman mounted numerous attempts to claim custody of the diamonds without success.

In 2011, his lawyer, Mr Puwai Chiutsi of P Chiutsi and Associates mounted an application for the release of the diamonds which was dismissed by High Court Judge, Justice Francis Bere on grounds that he was not licenced to possess diamonds.

On Monday, basing on a Supreme Court order of January 18, 2013 which maintained that he was not entitled to possess the diamonds, but has a legal interest in the precious stones in question, Chiadzwa, filed a new application before Mr Charles Murowe demanding compensation equivalent to the value of the confiscated diamonds.

The Attorney General, Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development were cited as respondents.

Chiadzwa demands that MMCZ to finalise the sale of the diamonds within seven days of the order and pay him the entire proceeds from the sales.

“Following the confirmation of my acquittal, I am entitled to the return of my exhibits, or the value thereof, the Supreme Court has already ruled that I cannot now possess the diamonds as the law was subsequently changed, but I am entitled to the value thereof.

“The second respondent, MMCZ who is a mere custodian of the diamonds, unlawfully refuses to finalise the sale process despite its knowledge that these cases have all been finalised in my favour.

The first respondent (Attorney General) has no legal interest in the exhibits (diamonds) once these are tendered as exhibits in trial and in particular where an accused is acquitted. The handling of the exhibits and disposal thereof is the responsibility of the Clerk of Court and not the first respondent,” reads part of the application.

Mr Chris Mutangadura who represented the Attorney General during the application argued that the application must be dismissed with costs. He said Mr Chiadzwa was not entitled to the return of the diamonds and the court was being invited to commit an illegality.

“He is not the owner of the diamonds and therefore he must not realise their value. He is trying to amend the Supreme Court order by putting words into it. The order is silent on the issue of paying the applicant, but it states clearly that he should not possess the stones.

“The issue of substituting legal interest with value is nothing here. You cannot transfer ownership to someone when you don’t own the thing. Therefore, Mr Chiadzwa must not direct people to sell the diamonds he does not possess. How can you sell something which is not yours?

“You can’t have the right of value to something you are prohibited by the law to own. He does not own the diamonds and must therefore derive no monetary value from them because there are not his,” argued Mr Mutangadura.

He also said the Supreme Court order was not directing anyone to do anything. MMCZ lawyer, Mr Itai Ndudzo, said his client only exist for lawful purposes.

“The MMCZ can only sell as per the provisions of the law. Zimbabwe is a signatory to the Kimberly Process Certification and it will be a serious issue if MMCZ sells the diamonds illegally. This will dent the country’s reputation and its membership with Kimberly will be at stake.

“The order being sought by the applicant constitutes dealing in precious stones which is criminal in terms of the Precious Minerals Act. Dealing is only permitted when it is done by people who are licensed.

“In terms of the law Mr Chiadzwa is expressly disqualified from dealing in precious stones yet he is coming to court to invite it to authorise dealing. The applicant is not a dealer and does not qualify in any matter whatsoever. You are being asked to sanction an illegality and therefore the application must be dismissed with costs,” said Mr Ndudzo.

Messrs Mutangadura and Ndudzo also told the court that if the Supreme Court order is ambiguous it is the duty of the same court to clarify its position.

They said, if indeed, the Supreme Court wanted Mr Chiadzwa to be paid for the diamonds that could have been stated in simple terms in as much as the same order stated that the diamonds could not be returned to him. Mr Murowe is expected to hand down his ruling on Monday.