JUDICIAL REBUKE: High Court Sets Aside RBZ Freeze on US$7 Million Gold Funds

HARARE — The High Court has delivered a scathing assessment of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) Governor John Mushayavanhu, describing his legal submissions as "untenable" and "highly misleading" in a landmark ruling that unfroze US$7 million belonging to Al Shams Global Ltd. The judgment, handed down by Justice Jacob Mafusire, marks a significant legal defeat for the central bank and raises serious questions regarding the procedural integrity of the nation's top monetary authority.

At the heart of the judicial rebuke was a procedurally defective affidavit. The court found that Governor Mushayavanhu purported to swear an affidavit in Harare while he was actually in Washington, D.C Justice Mafusire noted with concern that no sworn evidence was provided by the Governor or a commissioner of oaths to explain how a document could be signed in Harare while the signatory was thousands of miles away.

"The document containing the argument defies description. It is neither a sworn statement nor heads of argument, but purports to be both," Justice Mafusire remarked, subsequently striking the RBZ's notice of opposition from the record.

The dispute originated in July 2025, when the RBZ froze a US$7 million deposit intended for gold purchases. Despite earlier acknowledging that the funds originated from Dubai, the central bank demanded further proof of source. The court ruled the RBZ’s actions were:

• Unlawful: The bank failed to provide notice, reasons, or a hearing, violating the Administrative Justice Act.

• Irrational: The RBZ had a long-standing financial relationship with Al Shams, involving repayments exceeding US$53 million, making the sudden freeze inconsistent with prior dealings.

• Ultra Vires: The judge found the RBZ exceeded its authority, encroaching on the specific mandate of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).

The ruling orders the RBZ to set aside the suspension of the account and pay the costs of the litigation. Analysts suggest this case highlights a growing friction between the central bank's regulatory "hawkishness" and the procedural rights of private entities.

"This judgment is a reminder that even the central bank must operate within the strictures of administrative law," says Dr. Tinashe Kaduya, a commercial law expert. "Purported oversight cannot bypass the constitutional right to a fair hearing."

RBZ Governor High Court ruling