Zimpapers Logo

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Reporter
The Constitutional Court has indefinitely deferred hearing the matter in which businessman Mr Frederick Mutanda is seeking permanent stay of prosecution on charges of breaching the Exchange Control Act. Mutanda, who is Caps Holdings chairman and FCA Motors director, is alleged to have instructed his alleged accomplice Justin Majaka to apply to Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe for a change of principal for 50 drug formulae (dossiers) from Rallies Harare to Caps International, Johannesburg in August 2011.

It is alleged that in October 2011, MCAZ registered the 50 dossiers with Caps International, Johannesburg as the new principal and owners, which changed ownership of the drug formulae from Zimbabwe to South Africa.

The exportation of the drug formulae, which are classified under the intellectual property rights or patents, had no approval from the exchange control, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, it is alleged.

Mutanda claims he filed an application for his matter to be referred to the Constitutional Court but regional magistrate Mr Noel Mupeiwa did not make a ruling on the request prompting him to directly approach the Constitutional Court.

There was a dispute of facts today with Mutanda’s lawyers arguing that their client filed the application for referral of the case from the magistrate to the Constiotutional Court while the magistrate Mr Mupeiwa’s affidavit states that there was never any application for referral of the case and that there was no basis for him to make a ruling on an application that was never brought before him.

Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku today postponed the case to an indefinite day to allow the preparation and filing of a record of proceedings to clear the air on the issue of whether or not the application in question was made.

In the application Mutanda is challenging the alleged infringement of his rights in the manner in which his matter was being prosecuted.

Mutanda also argues that his right to be informed of the charge in sufficient detail in order to answer to it in a trial was violated.

He adds that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time was violated.

Mutanda further contends that his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty has been violated.