READ THE EXTENSIVE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ME, THE EU AND MEMBER STATES
|
|
Date
|
Summary Of Content
|
Link To Document
|
1
|
5th
February
2009
|
My lawyer asks the British FCO for the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of any documents or information held on me.
|
|
2
|
5th
February
2009
|
My lawyer writes a further letter to the British FCO to inform them that I will be applying to the European Court of First Instance for an annulment of my listing under the Sanctions Regulation; and that we have made an application for access to the European Commission's file, to which we are entitled to a reply within 15 days. We therefore request a reply from the British FCO within the same 15 day period.
|
|
3
|
12th
February
2009
|
The British FCO replies to my lawyer asking for “proof of my identity”.
|
|
4
|
19th
February
2009
|
My lawyer replies to the British FCO with “proof of my identity”.
|
|
5
|
25th
February
2009
|
The European Commission replies to my request for the release of documents or information held on me to say that they will need to extend the usual time limit by a further 15 days.
|
|
6
|
4th
March
2009
|
My lawyer writes to the European Commission questioning why they had extended the time limit for replying to my request under the Freedom of Information Act.
|
|
7
|
5th
March
2009
|
The European Commission finally replies to tell me that the documents on which they relied, when they decided to list me, cannot be released to me.
|
|
8
|
9th
March
2009
|
I appeal to the Secretary General of the EU Commission against the Commission's decision not to release documents about me in their possession.
|
|
9
|
11th
March
2009
|
My lawyer writes to the Director General – External Relations of the European Commission to say that we have appealed to the Secretary General against her decision not to release documents (see 8 above); and asking that, in the continued absence of those documents, we be given reasons why the Commission reached the conclusion that I should be listed.
|
|
10
|
17th
March
2009
|
I write to the EU Ambassador in Harare, following his initial meeting with my representative. I submit to him a dossier of evidence to support my plea for reconsideration of the wrongful listing of me by the EU.
|
|
11
|
8th
June
2009
|
The British FCO's letter to my lawyer – replying some 4 months late to my request under the Freedom of Information Act. The FCO refer us to some old internet sites – dating from 2001 to 2006 - from which they claim to have obtained information on me! They also confirm that they hold other documents on me but decline to release these, citing various exemptions.
|
|
12
|
10th
July
2009
|
My lawyer writes to the Secretary General of the Commission to complain that he has not yet replied to my appeal (9th March) against the Commission's decision to withhold documents from me – and complaining that it is now some 5 months since the initial request was made under the Freedom of Information Act.
|
|
13
|
22nd
July
2009
|
The British FCO's reply to a letter I sent to Lord Malloch Brown, then Foreign Office Minister, in which I had complained that the FCO had refused to release documents and information held on me and asking him to “review immediately whether continued sanctions against me were justified”.
The FCO state, in their reply, that it was the EU, not the UK Government, who listed me; also that it was not appropriate to discuss my listing with me as my case was pending before the Courts.
|
|
14
|
28th
July
2009
|
I reply to the British FCO asking them to facilitate a meeting with the UK's Ambassador to Harare in order that I can ascertain what reasons they had for listing me and so that I can present them with further documentary evidence to support my case that I do not have “strong ties to the regime”.
|
|
15
|
9th
September
2009
|
The British FCO replies to say it would “be inappropriate” for the UK Government to discuss my case with me whilst the Court case is ongoing; and stating that this same reason “prevents HM's Ambassador from acceding to (my) request for a meeting”.
|
|
16
|
26th
October
2009
|
I reply to the British FCO's letter of 9th September 2009.
a) I contest their statement that it would “be inappropriate” for them to hold discussions with me whilst my Court case is ongoing. I point out that my Court action seeks a judicial review of a political decision taken by the EU whose main sponsor, according to others, was the UK Government and its Harare Embassy. I cite evidence for reaching this conclusion, including the fact that the UK Government is the only Member State that has elected to intervene in the proceedings before the European Court.
b) I point out that it is still open to the UK Government (as the main sponsor of my listing) to decide that my listing was not justified; and to sponsor the removal of my name, and that of companies associated with me, from the sanctions list. I say that “the proceedings before the European Court are not an impediment to this and if such a decision were made, I would withdraw the (judicial) proceedings”.
c) I express my concern that the UK Government may not want to be seen to have sponsored my listing by the EC on grounds that have now been proved to be unjustified. I spell out the “... devastating effect ...” on me, my family and UK-based staff of that listing. And I point out that “... seeking to avoid embarrassment is not a ground on which fundamental human rights should be denied ...”
d) I remind them that “... waiting for the Zimbabwe situation to resolve itself over time cannot justify the continued imposition of such draconian measures over me ...” and assert that I should not have to go to Court and incur the expense and delay that this entails “in order to rectify a political decision which was made on grounds which have now been proved to be manifestly incorrect”.
|
|
17
|
26th
October
2009
|
I write to the French Foreign Minister in similar terms to the letter of the same date to the British FCO (and enclose, for their attention, a copy of my letter to the British FCO).
|
|
18
|
26th
October
2009
|
I write to Foreign Ministers of all EU Member States, and to various Officers of the European Commission, pointing out:
- that the British FCO had taken the view that it was inappropriate to engage with me because of the proceedings before the European Court but pointing out that it remained “open to the Commission ..... to decide as a political matter that the listing of me ... was not justified .....” and that the “proceedings before the Court are not an impediment to this and if such a decision were made, I would withdraw the proceedings”
My Comment:
On 22nd October 2009, the European Commission confirms my views expressed above when they state, in their Defence filed with the Court (see below), that “nothing prevents the listed person to request a re-examination of the measures even in parallel with an application to the Court”
|
|
19
|
5th
November
2009
|
On 5th November 2009 I receive a copy of the European Commission's Defence to my Application to the Court for an Annulment of the inclusion of my name, and that of certain associated companies, on the sanctions list.
In their defence the Commission state inter alia:
83. nothing prevents the (listed) persons concerned to request the Council or the Commission to re-examine the measure, even in parallel with an application to the Court (my emphasis) for annulment of the measure.
and
90. ....... the possibility to request the Community judicature to review the legality of the measure and the possibility, in parallel (my emphasis), to request the institution which has adopted the restrictive measure to review its decision in the light of elements presented by the person or entity concerned, offer in the view of the Commission sufficient guarantees for the possibility to “effectively challenge” the restrictive measure.
I have been advised that I should not publish the full Defence at this time.
|
(No attachment)
|
20
|
26th
November
2009
|
Following receipt of a copy of the European Commission's Defence, I write again to the EU Ambassador in Harare to point out the statements made by the European Commission in Sections 83 and 90 of their Defence.
I inform him that:
- It is not only appropriate to engage with me but, on the contrary, all Member States and institutions of the EU evidently have a duty so to do.
- Given that the “evidence” against me came from the diplomatic missions of the Member States in Harare, that must, logically, be the starting point for a parallel application to the institutions of the Community for a review of the previous decision to list me.
I ask him to please now agree to meet me, and my team, at the earliest possible opportunity.
|
|
21
|
26th
November
2009
|
I also write a letter to the British FCO in similar vein to the letter sent to the EU Ambassador.
|
|
22
|
25th
November
2009
|
I write again to Foreign Ministers of all EU Member States, and to various Officers of the European Commission, attaching copies of my further letters to the EU and British FCO.
I point out to them that the Commission has confirmed that EU institutions and Member States have a duty to allow me to effectively challenge the restrictive measures imposed on me, even in parallel with an application to the Court for annulment of the measure.
I inform them that I have, for many months, sought unsuccessfully, to meet with the Ambassadors of the EU and Britain as a first step in such an extra-judicial challenge.
I urge them to support my right to such meetings and to convey their views to the EU and British Ambassadors in Harare and the British FCO.
|
|
23
|
1st
December
2009
|
The British Embassy in Harare writes to inform me that the British FCO will reply to my various letters.
|
|
24
|
9th
December
2009
|
I write again to the EU Ambassador in Harare to say that he has not replied to my earlier letters.
I point out the devastating effect that sanctions are having on me, my family and many others who are dependent on me and conclude that the lack of positive action forces me to conclude that he does not consider that he has a duty of care towards me.
I once again ask him to agree to meet “with me and my team so that I may begin my parallel application to the institutions of the EU for a review of the decision to list me”.
|
|
25
|
9th
December
2009
|
I write again to the British FCO to say that they have not replied to my earlier letters.
I point out the devastating effect that sanctions are having on me, my family and many others who are dependent on me and conclude that the lack of positive action forces me to conclude that he does not consider that he has a duty of care towards me.
I once again ask them to agree to meet “with me and my team so that I may begin my parallel application to the institutions of the EU for a review of the decision to list me”.
|
|
26
|
12th
December
2009
|
(This letter, though dated 02 December 2009, was received by me after my chaser letter dated 9 December 2009).
The FCO replies to my letters of 26 October and 25 November. They say that I should address matters directly to the Council of the European Union and that neither the British FCO nor the British Embassy in Harare is able to give me further assistance in this matter.
|
|
27
|
18th
December
2009
|
The “Commission Services” of the EU replies to my letters to President Barosso. They tell me that they have referred that letter to the Council of the EU as that is the only EU institution that can make a decision to remove my name from the list.
They go on to say that, with regard to my request for a meeting with the EU Ambassador to Harare, they are not clear what would the purpose be of that meeting or how a “right” to such a meeting arises.
My Comment:
Their reply is quite astounding. The Commission have chosen to ignore the evidence put forward by their own legal department which asserted my right “to request the Council or (my emphasis) the Commission to re-examine the measure, even in parallel with an application to the Court (my emphasis) for annulment of the measure.”
|
|
28
|
11th
January
2010
|
The European Court sends me a copy of the Statements in Intervention submitted by the UK Government and the Council of the European Union.
I have been advised that these documents should not be published in full at this time.
In their Statement in Intervention, the Council of the EU seriously blunder by referring to a number of UN reports (dating back to 2000) that linked me, and certain companies, to “large scale plundering of the Congo (DRC)” as alleged evidence for listing me.
My Comment:
What the Council of the EU knew, or ought to have known, is that on 23 October 2003, the UN Secretary General produced a final report to the Security Council in which both I, and the relevant company referred to in the earlier report, were listed as CATEGORY II – RESOLVED CASES SUBJECT TO NCP MONITORING COMPLIANCE.
I have repeatedly asserted to the various parties in the EU that I must be:
- given access to documents on which they have relied; and
- that I must be given specific reasons why they saw fit to list me;
so that I can have an opportunity to effectively challenge the “facts” on which they have relied.
The gross error made by the European Council in relation to the UN Report is a good illustration of why it is so important that I must be given access to documents and information on which they have relied so as to be able to effectively challenge any factual errors made by them.
The EU and all its institutions have, of course, steadfastly refused to comply with these basic principles of natural Justice.
|
No Attachment
|
29
|
12th
January
2010
|
The Netherlands Foreign Ministry replies to my letters. They inform me that the Zimbabwe Sanctions List is under review; and that my listing will be reviewed as well and all relevant information, including that “provided by me”, will be taken into account.
My Comment:
The assumption on the part of the Netherlands Foreign Ministry, and, presumably, all other member states, is that I have been charged with specific actions and that I have presented a defence to those specific charges.
The reality is that I do not know what I am supposed to have done wrong beyond the general statement that I am deemed by them to have “strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe” and that I have “provided .... financial and other support to the regime”.
|
|
30
|
21st
January
2010
|
I write again to Foreign Ministers of all EU Member States, and to various Officers of the European Commission.
I tell them that:
- I have been informed that the EU Foreign Ministers will meet shortly to review sanctions.
- I quote the comments of the British Foreign Secretary, made to the House of Commons on 19th January 2010, that sanctions can only be lifted in a calibrated way and “above all, to be guided by what the MDC says to (the EU) about conditions ....”
- I remind them that the EU has seriously erred, in its Statement of Intervention to the European Court (see 11th January 2010) in citing, as one of the reasons for listing me, that the UN had previously linked me to “large scale plundering of the Congo (DRC)” .
I remind them that, in his FINAL REPORT to the Security Council on 23 October 2003, the UN Secretary General cleared me of those allegations by categorising me, and the company with which I was associated, as CATEGORY II – RESOLVED CASES SUBJECT TO NCP MONITORING COMPLIANCE.
- I raise the double standards that are evident in the EU's approach to sanctions as applied to the business community. I cite the latest example of a combined acquisition, by a German-based company, of a majority stake in a Zimbabwe Group from Gideon Gono, the Governor of the Reserve Bank (who is, himself, a listed person).
http://www.insiderzim.com/March10premier.html
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com/zimbabwe/4212.html
http://forum.newzimbabwe.com/index.php?/topic/8571-gonos-hand-in-premier-bank-deal/
http://greatindaba.com/issue/april-2010-vol-10/article/germans-bust-mugabe-sanctions
I urge the Foreign Ministers to use the occasion of their review of Sanctions to reconsider my inclusion in the sanctions list in the light of all these matters.
|
|
31
|
9th
February
2010
|
The Council of the EU writes to acknowledge receipt of my letter of 21 January 2010 and tells me that I will be informed of the outcome of that review.
|
|
32
|
9th
February
2010
|
I write again to Foreign Ministers of all EU Member States, and to various Officers of the European Commission.
I summarise, again, a number of reasons why they should re-consider my original inclusion in the list of sanctioned individuals.
My reasons are:
- The Commission has never put any specific allegations to me; I am forced to defend myself by trying to “prove a negative”.
- The UK Government, by their own admission, have relied on out-of-date and unsubstantiated media reports to support the inclusion of my name in the sanctions list. They have disclosed to me a list of about six (mainly press) websites that carried unsubstantiated allegations about me, dating from between 2001 and 2006.
- The Council of the EU had seriously erred on a matter of alleged fact; in their Statement in Intervention they had referred to, and placed great reliance on, out-of-date UN Reports that wrongly linked me to “large-scale plundering of the Congo (DRC)”. I had pointed out to them that, in a Final Report issued on 23rd October 2003, I had been cleared of those allegations.
- I have, twice, been arrested and imprisoned by the Zimbabwe Government at the instigation of the “Mugabe regime” with which I am accused of having strong ties.
- My farm has been listed for seizure (twice). I have only been able to retain it because it was primarily a Nature and Game Conservancy and not a working farm.
- I am a Zimbabwean and a businessman. Companies associated with me employ approximately 540 individuals in Zimbabwe and support approximately 3,600 dependants.
- I used to employ 13 people in the UK, all of whom had to be made redundant as a consequence of sanctions.
|
|
33
|
11th
February
2010
|
The British FCO replies to my letter of 21 January 2010 to say that they have been given approval to intervene on the side of the Council; and to reiterate that I should address my challenge directly to the Council of the EU (and not to them).
|
|
34
|
16th
February
2010
|
The Council of the EU writes to inform me that, following their review of the restrictive measures against Zimbabwe, the Council has decided that these should continue to apply to me.
They reject the pleadings in my letter of 21 January and state:
- The fact that the UN Final Report cleared me of the original allegations of “large-scale plundering of the Congo (DRC)” did not invalidate the Panel's findings in its previous reports.
My Comment: This is akin to saying that, if a Court finds one not guilty of a charge, one nevertheless is guilty because one was charged in the first place – a bizarre reversal, indeed, of the principles of international law and natural justice.
- The transactions by certain other EU Companies with sanctioned persons in Zimbabwe is not relevant to the issue of my own association with "the regime" (thereby attempting to neatly side-step the double standards that are evident from their actions).
My Comment:
The clear implication of their statement demonstrates that they treat, as a proven fact (and despite any and all the evidence to the contrary), the unfounded allegation made by them that I have an “association with the regime of President Mugabe”.
|
|
35
|
19th
February
2010
|
The British FCO replies to my letter of 10th February 2010 to say that the “advice in (their) letter of 11 February stands”.
|
|
36
|
28th
February
2010
|
The Office of the Irish Foreign Minister replies to my letters of 21 January and 10 February.
He refers, simply, to the decision taken to extend the “restrictive measures” for 12 months (note his error in referring to the date of the decision as being 26 January instead of 16 February) and states that I “... will be aware of the procedures for communicating views to the EU.”
|
|
37
|
4th
March
2010
|
The Belgian Foreign Minister replies to my letter of 21 January 2010. He refers simply to the letter sent to me by the Council of the EU (sic) on 05 February 2010 “explaining why the reasons for (my) designation on the list” and goes on to say that this “represents the view of all EU member states on this matter”.
My Comment:
I did not receive a letter dated 5 February 2010 from the EU Council as inferred by the Belgian FM.
The most likely explanation seems to me to be that a letter must have been sent by the European Council to the Member States on 5th February 2010 in advance of a meeting, setting out their reasons for continuing to list me.
I strongly question why I should not be entitled to see those reasons, even at this late stage!
|
|
