The Criminal Investigations Department's Serious Fraud Squad obtained a warrant from Harare provincial magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe compelling Econet to comply with the directive to release Biti's call log.
Biti has appealed in the High Court against the magistrate's July 5 warrant. He also wants the High Court to stop Econet from releasing his call history to the police. He has also filed an urgent chamber application seeking an interdict against Detective Chief Superintendent Patrick Majuta of CID Serious Frauds and Senior Assistant Commissioner Simon Nyathi from accessing the information.
"My legal practitioners have been advised by Mtetwa and Nyambirai law firm (Econet's lawyers) that Chief Supt Majuta has threatened the executives of Econet with arrest if they failed to comply with their unlawful request," Biti says in his papers.
"I submit therefore that is extremely urgent. I also submit further that even if the information is released albeit unlawful, the respondents must be interdicted from using such information.
"I am a Government minister and a legal practitioner of this honourable court and I have committed no criminal offence.
"I have not been investigated of any offence and the basis upon which the warrant may well have been obtained was clearly false."
Biti said all this was part of an escalating harassment campaign against him which he said peaked with the bombing of his home and the besieging of his office by war veterans.
"I submit that the release of the information requested is unlawful and unconstitutional as it violates my right to privacy and protection of the law," Biti says through his lawyers Atherstone and Cook.
"Further such information, if released, will be prejudicial to me and to my political party MDC."
Biti said the magistrate was not supposed to issue the warrant in the first place.
"The magistrate erred in issuing the warrant without being satisfied that there was a reasonable suspicion for the commission of the fraud particularly on the part of the appellant," he said.
Police cited the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, but Biti said the law was not applicable in this instance. Biti argued this falls under the purview of the Interception of Telecommunications Act Chapter 11:20.
The matter has been set down before Justice Chinembiri Bhunu tomorrow.
Post published in: News