A magistrate in Mutoko has sparked outrage after issuing an order that overturned the Environmental Management Agency’s decision to halt mining activities in the Manyuchi River, Makaha — a vital water source for hundreds of local villagers.
Legal experts have described the ruling as irregular, arguing that magistrates lack the legal authority to review or overturn decisions made by statutory bodies such as EMA — a power that rests solely with the High Court.
The controversy stems from a dispute involving a Chinese-owned mining entity, Zhangveng Syndicate, which had raised concerns over the environmentally destructive operations of one Emmanuel Ndemera along the Manyuchi River. Zhangveng accused Ndemera of using hazardous chemicals, including cyanide, in his mining operations, posing serious risks to residents and the local ecosystem.
Following the complaint, EMA conducted an investigation and confirmed that Ndemera had violated the terms of his Environmental Impact Assessment licence by conducting mining within 250 metres of the river. The agency subsequently suspended his operations until full compliance with environmental regulations was achieved.
However, Ndemera swiftly approached the Mutoko Magistrates’ Court, which issued an order allowing him to resume mining — a decision now being challenged as unlawful.
Zhangveng’s legal representatives argue that the magistrate’s ruling is invalid, insisting that only the High Court has the jurisdiction to review or reverse EMA’s determinations.
Related Stories
In a letter addressed to EMA, Zhangveng’s lawyer, Admire Rubaya, stressed that the agency retains the right to appeal the Mutoko magistrate’s decision before the High Court, describing the lower court’s intervention as “procedurally and legally defective.”
“A Magistrates’ Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to entertain review applications or to set aside the decisions of a statutory body such as the Environmental Management Agency. This is a function reserved for the High Court,” the lawyers stated.
“The granting of such an order effectively undermines the statutory mandate and authority of 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 letter further added that given the substantive nature of the order — which effectively reviews an administrative action — EMA is “well within its rights to file an application for review in the High Court to have the magistrate’s decision corrected.”
The Chinese company also offered its lawyers’ assistance to EMA’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,” the letter concluded.
Leave Comments