Chinese national Quijun Yu, detained at Mutoko Remand Prison despite being granted bail on a murder charge, is now seeking his release through a High Court challenge.
He is contesting a policy that detains Chinese nationals accused of murder despite being granted bail, arguing it’s discriminatory since it doesn’t apply to other foreigners.
He cited among others the Chief Director of Immigration, Minister of State security, Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General as respondents seeking answers over the policy.
The High Court granted him $5 000 bail and ordered him to hand over his passport and title deeds until the matter is finalised.
But Yu, through his lawyer Admire Rubaya, says he was kept in custody after immigration officials canceled his work permit, citing a policy targeting Chinese nationals accused of murder.
He maintains the policy is discriminatory, targeting him solely for being Chinese, and is urging the High Court to rule it unconstitutional.
“Following full compliance with the bail order, I reasonably expected the prisons to release me from custody or facilitate such release. To my dismay, however, I was advised that my release could not be effected without authority from the Chief Director Immigration and minister of State security on account of a purported standing government security cluster policy that any Chinese national charged with murder should not be released from custody even where bail pending trial has been granted by the Courts,” he said in his application.
He argues that only the Ministry of Home Affairs can cancel a foreigner’s work permit, not Immigration. He also contends that the affected party should have been notified and given a chance to respond, which did not occur in this case.
“The law clearly provides that the decision to cancel a permit without notice is the sole preserve of the Minister Of Home Affairs who has to give the directive to the 1st Respondent (Chief Director of Immigration). In the circumstances, it is manifest that the 1st Respondent usurped the powers of the 5th Respondent, and did so without affording me the necessary prior notice,” he said.
“The purported cancellation of my permit was not only self-serving, but also unilateral, grossly irrational, and purely unlawful. It was a nullity in law, devoid of any legal effect and cannot stand.
“In view of this self-serving, unilateral, grossly irrational and purely unlawful conduct I approach this Honourable Court secking relief. I do so to ensure that the impugned
conduct is expressly declared unlawful, and that my consequential release is granted so as to give full effect to the extant bail order of this Court,” the application reads.
He says the Chief Director by canceling his employment permit has convicted him yet he is still presumed innocent.
“The 1st Respondent has illegally interfered with my right to use and rely on the temporary employment permit as the basis for my stay in this country, as l am presumed innocent at this stage whilst the 1st Respondent has treated me as I have been convicted already and I should be punished.
“Such conduct was brazenly actuated by malice, as the 1st Respondent’s decision is unsupported by law and instead premised on an alleged policy targeting Chinese
nationals accused of criminal offences. This stands in stark contrast to the treatment of other foreign nationals who, upon being granted bail, are released from custody with the concurrence of the 1st Respondent,” his papers read.
He said including ministers in his application is meant to clarify whether it is official government policy to keep Chinese nationals in custody even after they have been granted bail.
“I have accordingly cited the 2nd, 5th and 7thRespondents to clarify whether it is now government policy that once a Chinese national is charged with a criminal offence, particularly murder, they should never be released from custody even in the face of a bail order issued by the High Court. It is trite that l am merely charged, and am not a convicted murder criminal, and it would be arbitrary to treat me as the later,” he said.
