The ban, meant to stabilise the local currency, was part of
a raft of measures announced on Saturday to arrest the economic challenges
afflicting the country.
The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) then enforced the
measures in a statement on Monday, threatening to take action against
non-compliant banks.
But some lawyers said banks were not obliged to heed the
RBZ directive because there was no law that compelled them to comply with such
measures.
“This is a shameful document by Zimbabwe’s central bank.
Since it knows the decree has no legal foundation it distances itself by
calling it a ‘Presidential Announcement’. There is no legal instrument under
Zimbabwe’s laws called a ‘Presidential Announcement’,” said United
Kingdom-based lawyer Alex Magaisa.
“He could have used the Presidential Powers (Temporary
Measures) Act even if that would still be controversial. But no, he couldn’t be
bothered. And here the central bank colludes in the law breaking by purporting
to enforce the illegal decree. But the pliant banks will oblige.”
The measures have been viewed as an attempt to tinker with
the exchange rate as the local currency continues on a free-fall, amid rising
inflation and skyrocketing prices of goods and services.
The announcement came at a time when there is a groundswell
of discontent over rising poverty.
Mnangagwa, who came to power via a 2017 coup, has
repeatedly said he was being sabotaged.
Lawyer Obey Shava said: “I understand that currently, there
is no law giving effect to the President’s national announcement of May 7,
2022. Banks are not legally obliged to act upon this RBZ directive.”
Opposition Citizens Coalition for Change spokesperson and
lawyer, Fadzayi Mahere added: “This decree is unconstitutional in its substance
and ultra vires the law. You can’t undo the entire law of banking, violate the
constitutional right to trade and freedom of commerce — and do so by memo! If
banks don’t challenge this, it will be the end of banking law as we know it.”
But in an interview with NewsDay, corporate lawyer Rodgers
Matsikidze said the RBZ directive was binding unless challenged in the courts.
“Basically, what the President did was pronounce policies,”
Matsikidze said.
“The relevant procedure was that the relevant minister
should have drafted the legal principles on the policies and submitted them to the
Attorney-General.
“The President could have used the Presidential Powers Act
to enact a law on economic policies. In the meantime, RBZ has proceeded to
issue a statement on the announced measures and unless that is set aside by a
court of law, it remains binding. RBZ is a regulator, so unless its directive
is challenged at the court of law.”
No comment could be obtained from Bankers Association of
Zimbabwe chief executive Faunel Mutogo who said he was in a meeting. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment