By Staff Reporter
A Mutoko magistrate has come under scrutiny after reversing an Environmental Management Agency (EMA) decision that had stopped a miner from engaging in harmful practices within the Manyuchi River in Makaha a crucial water source for hundreds of villagers.
According to lawyers, only the High Court has the jurisdiction to review decisions by statutory bodies such as EMA, a power not afforded to magistrates.
Chinese firm Zhangveng Syndicate successfully lobbied authorities to halt the “toxic” mining operations of Emmanuel Ndemera in the Manyuchi River. Ndemera reportedly claims to be politically connected and untouchable.
Citing their corporate social responsibility to protect Makaha villagers who rely on the water, the Chinese firm reported Emmanuel Ndemera’s use of chemicals like cyanide.
The Environmental Management Agency (EMA) investigated and found Ndemera violated his Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) license by mining too close to the river.
He has been barred from operating until he meets all EIA requirements.
In response to the ban, Ndemera rushed to the Mutoko Magistrates Court and obtained an order allowing him to continue mining. However, Zhangveng’s lawyers argue the order is defective stating only the High Court has jurisdiction over such issues.
In a letter to the Agency, Zhangveng Syndicate lawyer Admire Rubaya said EMA has a right to challenge the decision of the magistrate at the High Court saying the lower court has no jurisdiction to review orders of a statutory body.
“A Magistrates Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain review applications or to set aside he decisions of a statutory body such as the Environmental Management Agency. This is a function reserved for the High Court.
“The granting of such an Order effectively undermines the statutory mandate and authority of the EMA as conferred by the Environmental Management Act.
“We strongly advise your agency to take immediate and decisive action to challenge this order and affirm your statutory authority,” the lawyers said.
“Given the substantive nature of the Order as a review of an administrative action, your agency is well within its rights to file an application for review in the High Court to have the Magistrate’s decision corrected,” read part of tye letter.
The Chinese firm warned that leaving the matter unresolved would set a bad legal precedent and offered their lawyers to assist the Agency’s legal team.
“The integrity of environmental protection laws and the authority of your agency are at stake. Allowing this Order to stand creates a dangerous precedent that could be exploited to circumvent your crucial regulatory work.
“We trust that you will treat this matter with the urgency it deserves. We are available to provide any further information from our client that may assist your legal team,” read part of the letter.
