We note with concern a press statement purportedly published by Mr FRANK BUYANGA SADIQI’s South African attorney Mr William Wilcock published in the NewsDay of 18th April 2020 relating to a Provisional High Court Order of 16th April 2020.
The statement has no business address or contact numbers and we are unable to respond privately & directly. We take the view that legal practitioners in South Africa as in Zimbabwe are fully aware that court judgements are not appealed in press statements but through court process.
We advise the public that Mr Frank Buyanga Sadiqi has not filed any appeal against the said order of court and most certainly has not secured leave of the High Court or a judge thereof to file such an appeal as required by the law.
In the result, Mr Buyanga, not being above the law, was obliged to comply with the terms of the order which he ignored and is now in contempt.
We further advise that Mr Buyanga is not the lawful custodian, we challenge him to produce any extant court order that he claims gave him temporary custody.
We challenge Mr Buyanga to make public the resolutions of the discussion between his lawyers and the ZRP legal team at PGHQ relating to his claims of temporary custody shortly before he took the law into his own hands.
Not being a custodian, Mr Buyanga’s conduct at Waterfalls Shopping Centre on 26th March 2020 and his continued detention of the minor child incommunicado to date is in violation of the criminal law.
While Mr Buyanga’s legal practitioners claim that Mr Buyanga is now outside Zimbabwe, the Chief Immigration Officer’s records presented to the High Court do not show any lawful exit by Mr Buyanga or the child. Mr Buyanga’s lawyers were unable to prove his lawful exit in court.
His purported entry into South Africa occurred after the closure of the South African borders by operation of law at 23:59hrs on 26th March 2020.
The Chief Immigration Officer’s reports further expose the fact that Mr Buyanga has routinely violated two other court orders 11865/19 and HC 5011/19 barring him from removing the child from Zimbabwe.
As regards Mr Buyanga’s claims of corruption against third parties, the law must be allowed to take its course and require him to immediately furnish proof of his claims to the relevant Zimbabwean authorities.
Mr Wilcock is best advised to rely on the competence of Mr Buyanga’s local legal practitioners in addressing issues to do with Zimbabwean law, Zimbabwean judges and Zimbabwean court process and to desist from scandalizing the court in the media where the affected judicial officers cannot respond.
It is available to Mr Wilcock to seek registration in Zimbabwe and appear in person to make those claims in court. For the record, the urgent chamber application was filed on the 27th March 2020, heard over a period of twenty (20) days but Mr Buyanga, who was legally represented throughout did not seek the recusal of the judge.
Finally, it is not in the best interests of any five (5) year old child to be removed from its mother’s lawful custody, care and affection, not least when the removal is violent and criminal.
It is also not in the best interests of the child for the child to be detained incommunicado from either of its parents or the Zimbabwean High Court which is constitutionally mandated to protect him at all times. We urge both Mr Wilcock and his client to respect the laws and institutions of Zimbabwe and the integrity of the Zimbabwean judiciary.
MUTUSO, TARUVINGA & MHIRIBIDI 10 MOLD CRESCENT, KENSINGTON, HARARE
20th April 2020