Zimbabwe senses sanctions victory
2012 May 28 11:24:27 | 916 Views
- Ingabe ikuphatheleni i-MDC, njalo kusizani ukuyivotela? | 2013 May 13 17:03:55 | 2752 views
- Ikuphatheleni iMDC, kusiza ngani ukuyivotela? | 2013 May 08 19:28:47 | 2740 views
- MDC-T on course | 2013 March 27 14:05:12 | 6642 views
- People will vote for a party with sustainable economic programmes | 2013 March 04 02:36:52 | 7421 views
- Introducing: Election (2013) campaign articles | 2013 March 02 11:08:41 | 5985 views
- 'Sanctions were a blessing in disguise,' says Gono | 2013 May 19 09:05:21
- Mujuru, Mudenge struck off US sanctions list | 2013 May 03 06:28:26
- 'Sanctions are the major outstanding issue,' says Prof Moyo | 2013 May 01 08:54:33
- Police blame sanctions for domestic violence | 2013 April 30 07:52:55
- 'Sanctions have made Zimbabweans wiser,' says Mujuru | 2013 April 29 05:45:34
- Prostitute dies during love making, 'resurrects' in coffin | 2013 March 23 10:13:12 | 84463 views
- Woman sends photo of naked President Mugabe via Whatsapp | 2013 January 10 15:04:10 | 46148 views
- Zim woman who had sex with boyfriend as son watched named | 2013 January 31 09:05:43 | 44656 views
- Man marries mother-in-law after his wife died | 2013 January 16 11:05:42 | 30368 views
Zimbabwe stands a good chance of winning its court battle against the European Union (EU) over sanctions because there are no firm legal grounds to justify the embargo, legal experts have said.
In separate interviews last week, the experts said the case was bound to go in favour of the Southern African state as the EU took the punitive action without following proper channels.
They also said the sanctions were based on frivolous allegations.
Prominent Harare lawyer Mr Terrence Hussein said the punitive measures were unjustified. He said Nicaragua had already set a precedent by winning a case against the United States in international courts.
"From a legal standpoint, our chances of winning the judgment are bright because there are no firm grounds to justify these sanctions," he said.
"The action taken to impose the sanctions was not only arbitrary but also smacked of vindictiveness."
Mr Hussein said the lawsuit against the EU was a landmark achievement as it marks the few moments that a developing country has challenged a perceived giant in international affairs through legal means.
"Most nations prefer to settle issues of such kind through diplomatic means.
"However, Zimbabwe has made a strong statement to the world that the so-called giant can also be challenged through the legal system.
"The norm has always been for the developed countries to test international laws against the poor. However, this development sends a strong message that international law is not only for the strong nations but for the weak as well.
On the other hand, the issue is not only about winning, it is also about asserting our rights as an independent and sovereign state.
"It is like the case of a high school bully who abuses someone. So, in this case, we are protesting against the bully and sending a clear message that we will not accept being bullied."
Another lawyer, Mr Tafadzwa Sengwe, said Zimbabwe was never accorded the opportunity to respond to the allegations that led to the sanctions.
"The proper legal course was not followed. When you accuse someone of wrongdoing, you should give that someone a right to respond to the allegations and only then can a judgment be drawn," he said.
"In this case, Zimbabwe did not get a chance to respond to the allegations and punishment was meted out based on allegations that were frivolous and assumed."
On April 25, Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana led Zimbabwe's bid to seek legal recourse over the sanctions by taking the Council of the European Union and European Commission to the General Court of the EU in Brussels.
The sanctions are legally and technically inconsistent with the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU in that they violate its treaty.
According to the AG's application, the EU:
Included individuals without proper legal basis for doing so;
Manifestly erred in considering that the criteria for listing on the contested measures were fulfilled;
Failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including individuals and entities;
Failed to safeguard the applicants' rights of defence and to effective judicial review; and
Infringed without jurisdiction or proportion the applicants' fundamental rights, including the right to protection of their property, business, reputation and privilege and family life.
Moyo Roy | 2013 May 20 | 199 Views
Gift Phiri | aljazeera.com | 2013 May 20 | 2323 Views
Fuyane, Lovemore | 2013 May 20 | 1741 Views
Sapa | 2013 May 20 | 1416 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 3992 Views
Own correspondent | 2013 May 20 | 1087 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 2476 Views
Aljazeera | 2013 May 20 | 1423 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 3045 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1762 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 2330 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 2496 Views
Augustine Hwata | 2013 May 20 | 1499 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 2133 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 3089 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 3270 Views
Court Reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1752 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1674 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1259 Views
Sports reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1671 Views
Staff reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1978 Views
Agencies | 2013 May 20 | 1233 Views
Sunday World | 2013 May 20 | 2556 Views
Staff Reporter | 2013 May 20 | 1945 Views
TMZ | 2013 May 20 | 1114 Views
Emmanuel Ndlovu | 2013 May 18 | 1733 Views
Arts reporter | 2013 May 17 | 1945 Views
Entertainment Correspondent | 2013 May 17 | 2472 Views
Moyo Roy | 2013 May 16 | 2117 Views
Vasco Shaya | 2013 May 16 | 3863 Views