Pixie DustThe High Court judge, Tawanda Chitapi, has mandated the release of Justice Mayor Wadyajena’s Lamborghini and 22 trucks, which were seized in 2022 as part of a probe into a US$5 million fraud and money laundering case involving the former Gokwe-Nembudziya legislator and several accomplices, including former Cottco executives, the government’s cotton agent.
This decision comes after the politician and his company, Mayor Logistics, filed a court challenge against the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) and the Prosecutor General, demanding the return of the confiscated assets.
Wadyajena, along with Cottco executives Pius Manamike, Maxmore Njanji, Chiedza Danha, and Fortunate Molai, faced charges of fraud, money laundering, and concealing transactions from a principal. Additionally, Wadyajena’s Mayor Logistics and Danha’s Pierpoint Moncroix were also implicated.
Wadyajena argued that since the state had withdrawn charges against him and his co-accused before entering a plea, there was no justification for holding onto their property.
He further contended that the order to seize the assets, issued by High Court judge Pisirayi Kwenda in August 2022, was only valid for a 30-day period to facilitate investigations into the alleged crimes.
In response, ZACC, represented by its legal counsel, maintained that investigations into potential fraud involving the accused were still ongoing, despite their release from remand.
In his ruling, Justice Chitapi pointed out that the respondents had failed to return to court to request an extension of the seizure beyond the initial 30-day period granted by Justice Kwenda.
“The continued seizure of the property cannot be justified for investigations unrelated to a recognized crime,” Justice Chitapi stated. “Based on the facts presented, the continued detention of the applicants’ property is unlawful.”
Consequently, the judge ordered the release of the seized property to the applicants, stating, “The respondents holding any of the trucks must release them upon receipt of this order.”
No costs were awarded in the ruling.
