HARARE
–
A
Harare
Commercial
Court
judge
has
delivered
a
stinging
rebuke
of
the
Reserve
Bank
of
Zimbabwe,
finding
that
it
acted
unlawfully,
irrationally,
and
in
bad
faith
when
it
froze
a
gold-buying
company’s
funds,
and
that
the
central
bank
governor’s
own
court
papers
were
worthless
because
he
signed
them
electronically
from
Washington
while
pretending
to
be
in
Harare.
Justice
Joseph
Mafusire,
in
a
23-page
judgment
handed
down
on
April
22,
set
aside
the
RBZ’s
July
2025
decision
suspending
Fidelity
Gold
Refinery’s
account
at
GetBucks
Microfinance
Bank,
and
ordered
the
central
bank
to
pay
costs.
The
judge
opened
with
barely-disguised
exasperation
at
both
parties.
“The
parties
know
it:
this
was
a
matter
not
for
the
courts,”
he
wrote.
“It
ought
to
have
been
settled
out
of
court.
That
it
did
not,
is
manifestly
an
issue
of
personality
clashes
and
the
preservation
of
self-images.”
The
dispute
pitted
Al
Shams
Global,
a
British
Virgin
Islands-registered
company
owned
by
businessman
Jayesh
Shah,
against
Zimbabwe’s
central
bank.
The
judge
found
the
relationship
between
the
two
to
be
anything
but
ordinary
–
spanning
more
than
two
decades
and
involving
Al
Shams
Global
lending
the
RBZ
millions
of
dollars
for
“urgent
national
needs,”
with
the
central
bank
still
repaying
a
debt
that
stood
at
over
US$53
million
as
recently
as
2022.
At
the
time
the
dispute
erupted,
the
RBZ
was
servicing
that
debt
at
US$250,000
per
week.
“Through
numerous
case
management
conferences,
I
coaxed
the
parties
to
talk
and
settle,”
the
judge
noted.
“I
never
thought
I
would
have
to
render
a
decision.
I
was
wrong.”
Al
Shams
had
a
contract
with
Fidelity
Gold
Refinery,
a
unit
of
the
RBZ,
to
purchase
a
minimum
of
100
kilogrammes
of
gold
per
week.
Al
Shams
would
fly
the
gold
to
Dubai,
sell
it,
and
bring
the
hard
currency
proceeds
back
into
Zimbabwe
in
cash,
declaring
it
to
the
Zimbabwe
Revenue
Authority
at
Robert
Gabriel
Mugabe
International
Airport
before
depositing
the
funds
into
Fidelity’s
account
at
GetBucks.
On
May
31
and
June
17,
2025,
Shah
brought
in
US$6
million
and
US$6.1
million
respectively,
a
combined
US$12.1
million.
He
followed
every
prescribed
step.
In
July
2025,
the
RBZ
froze
Fidelity’s
entire
account,
citing
suspicions
about
US$7
million
of
those
deposits.
The
central
bank’s
consistent
demand
thereafter
was
for
an
explanation
of
“the
source
of
funds.”
Al
Shams
refused
to
provide
it
in
writing,
citing
confidentiality
obligations,
and
instead
sought
a
face-to-face
meeting.
The
impasse
was
never
broken.
All
out-of-court
efforts
failed.
By
October
2025,
Al
Shams
had
filed
in
the
Commercial
Court.
Before
even
reaching
the
merits,
the
judge
dealt
a
procedural
blow
to
the
RBZ
that
effectively
removed
it
from
the
proceedings
entirely.
Al
Shams
had
challenged
the
validity
of
the
RBZ
governor’s
opposing
affidavit,
pointing
out
that
while
it
was
stamped
as
having
been
sworn
at
Harare
on
October
10,
2025,
before
commissioner
of
oaths
Gloria
Matambo,
the
governor
was
in
fact
in
Washington,
DC
that
day.
The
RBZ’s
response
was,
in
Justice
Mafusire’s
telling,
chaotic.
“I
could
not
quite
understand
the
position
of
the
first
respondent
and
its
legal
practitioners
on
the
issue,”
he
wrote.
Rather
than
filing
a
proper
affidavit
to
explain
what
happened,
the
RBZ’s
lawyers
produced
a
document
that
was
“neither
a
sworn
statement
nor
heads
of
argument,
but
purports
to
be
both.”
Through
it,
the
RBZ
eventually
admitted
the
governor
had
signed
electronically
after
taking
the
oath
online,
but
provided
no
sworn
explanation
from
either
the
governor
or
the
commissioner
of
oaths.
The
judge
was
unmoved
by
arguments
invoking
technology
and
the
Commercial
Division’s
modernising
ethos.
He
compared
the
situation
unfavourably
to
a
South
African
case
the
RBZ
had
cited,
ED
Food
S.R.L.
v
Africa
Best
[Pty]
Ltd,
where
a
commissioner
of
oaths
had
submitted
a
proper
affidavit
detailing
the
virtual
commissioning
process.
Here,
there
was
nothing
comparable,
Justice
Mafusire
said.
“Furthermore,
until
the
applicant
raised
the
issue,
the
opposing
affidavit
was
passing
off
as
having
been
deposed
to
and
signed
at
Harare
before
a
commissioner
of
oaths,
with
both
the
deponent
and
the
commissioner
of
oaths
being
in
the
presence
of
each
other,”
the
judge
found.
“This
was
highly
misleading.”
Citing
the
Supreme
Court’s
ruling
in
Ariston
Management
Services
v
Econet
Wireless
Zimbabwe
which
confirmed
that
an
affidavit
deponent
and
commissioner
must
be
physically
present
together,
the
judge
struck
out
the
RBZ’s
entire
notice
of
opposition
and
opposing
affidavit.
“Arguments
from
the
Bar,
spirited
as
they
may
be,
cannot
be
a
substitute
for
sworn
evidence,”
he
said.
“The
first
respondent
could
have
easily
applied
to
adduce
further
evidence
rather
than
sneak
in
such
material
evidence
through
the
back
door.”
On
procedural
fairness
under
section
3
of
the
Administrative
Justice
Act,
Justice
Mafusire
observed:
“There
was
no
communication
by
the
first
respondent
to
the
applicant
regarding
the
blocking
of
the
account
in
question.”
The
freeze
was
announced
to
GetBucks
by
letter
on
July
25,
2025,
but
Al
Shams
was
simply
never
told.
“I
find
that
before,
or
even
soon
after
its
impugned
decision,
the
first
respondent
did
not
comply
with
section
3
of
AJA,
particularly
ss
[2]
thereof,
in
regards
to
providing
adequate
reasons
for
its
decision
to
block
the
account.”
On
legality,
the
judge
found
that
the
guidelines
the
RBZ
relied
upon
to
demand
a
“source
of
funds”
explanation
were
directed
at
authorised
dealers
–
the
banks
–
not
at
depositors.
But
the
judge
reserved
his
sharpest
criticism
for
the
RBZ’s
invocation
of
the
Money
Laundering
and
Proceeds
of
Crime
Act.
The
central
bank
had
argued
it
was
entitled
to
demand
source-of-funds
explanations
under
the
Act’s
anti-money
laundering
framework.
The
judge
took
that
framework
apart
and
turned
it
against
the
RBZ.
Under
section
12
of
the
Money
Laundering
Act,
he
found,
it
is
the
Financial
Intelligence
Unit
or
Zimra,
not
the
RBZ,
that
is
empowered
to
seize
suspicious
currency,
and
even
then
only
for
72
hours
without
a
magistrate’s
order.
The
FIU,
though
housed
within
the
RBZ,
is
a
creature
of
statute
that
“acts
independently
of
both
the
RBZ
and
the
minister
of
finance.”
The
RBZ’s
own
in-house
Financial
Surveillance
Division
is
a
different
entity
entirely
which
cannot
usurp
the
functions
of
the
FIU.
Section
30
of
the
Money
Laundering
Act
requires
financial
institutions
to
report
suspicious
transactions
to
the
FIU
within
three
working
days.
There
was
no
evidence
the
RBZ
had
done
so.
“Apparently,
there
was
no
scrupulous
observance
by
the
respondents
themselves,
particularly
the
first
respondent
(RBZ),
of
the
provisions
of
the
Money
Laundering
Act,”
the
judge
noted.
On
irrationality,
the
judge
found
the
RBZ’s
stance
indefensible
in
the
context
of
the
parties’
relationship.
The
RBZ
already
knew
the
funds
had
come
from
a
financial
institution
in
Dubai
–
it
had
said
so
in
its
own
email
of
September
1,
2025.
Yet
it
continued
to
demand
proof.
The
US$7
million
it
questioned
was
less
than
the
amount
it
was
itself
paying
Al
Shams
weekly.
The
company
had
operated
openly
within
Zimbabwe’s
banking
system
for
over
two
decades.
“I
find
that
not
only
did
the
RBZ
breach
the
Money
Laundering
Act
in
the
respects
ventilated,
but
also
that
its
decision
to
block
the
account
in
question
was
arbitrary
and
irrational
in
the
light
of
the
situation
prevailing
on
the
ground,”
said
the
judge.
Al
Shams’
own
characterisation
that
the
freeze
was
“no
more
than
a
clash
of
personalities
between
the
parties’
principals
and
nothing
related
to
genuine
administrative
oversight”
–
was
not
rejected
by
the
court.
The
judge
set
aside
the
RBZ’s
July
25,
2025,
decision
suspending
Fidelity’s
account,
and
ordered
the
central
bank
to
pay
the
costs
of
the
application
on
a
party-and-party
scale.
He
declined
to
award
costs
on
the
punitive
attorney-and-client
scale
sought
by
Al
Shams,
finding
that
the
RBZ’s
conduct
on
the
merits,
though
unlawful,
had
not
crossed
the
threshold
for
a
penal
costs
order.
The
irregularity
over
the
governor’s
affidavit,
he
said,
“was
not
such
gross
misconduct
as
would
warrant
an
adverse
order
of
costs
beyond
the
party
and
party
scale.”
Al
Shams
was
represented
by
Titan
Law
instructing
Advocate
Lewis
Uriri
and
Professor
Lovemore
Madhuku.
The
RBZ
was
represented
by
Gambe
Law
Group
while
Fidelity
was
represented
by
Coghlan
Welsh
&
Guest.
GetBucks
did
not
participate
in
the
proceedings.
