advertisement

(Download) High Court order used to raid The Source by Econet, Steward, Sheriff

econet-high-court-order

Here’s a pdf of the High Court order used to raid The Source. Click on the picture to download it, or just here: http://www.techzim.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Econet_Steward_Bank_Provisional_High_Court_Order.pdf


Quick NetOne, Telecel, Africom, And Econet Airtime Recharge

If anything goes wrong, click here to enter your query.

advertisement


WhatsApp Discussions

Click to join a Techzim WhatsApp group:
https://chat.whatsapp.com/DKzLTsQPM6SBd0mrKOKPai

If you find the group full, please notify us on +263 715 071 199 and we'll update the link.


16 thoughts on “(Download) High Court order used to raid The Source by Econet, Steward, Sheriff

  1. I’m siding with Econet on this one.

    There’s a brood of “journalists” that think self-publishing online is actually journalism.

    They dont seem to have mentioned having retained legal advice before the fact, but only after they were raided or served with notices.

    I do believe press freedoms should be respected, in as much as I believe the confidentiality of a bank and its client should ascribe to that dictated by regulation.

    That said, why did other publications decide not to publish this information?

    Is it not because of counsel they received on the legality of disclosing such information?

    Is it not ignorance that has pitted The Source and Econet into this mess?

    We would like to hear what made The Source decide to go ahead and publish this information.

    What did counsel, siting which section of the law (financial and constitutional) did the Editor decide to endorse and authorise the publication?

    Was the current lawyer defending them the one who advised them to do so?

    Why was the article put offline?

    Isnt that an actual admission and agreement that the information they published was priviledged and violated law(s)?

    If it is wrong, why should they perpetuate the issue as a victim yet they were the instigator?

    Econet seems to have taken more legal recourse than The Source seems to have. Unfortunately, the raid (however wrong or right it was done) incited backlash that overlooked the actual case, its history and who it was that was acting on the law.

    1. Tinm@n: I’m siding with the Source on this one.

      Leaving aside your opinion of online journalism (scare quotes or not): The Source is duly accredited with the relevant authorities. There were launched with the assistance of Thompson Rueters, so I believe their journalism credentials (or pedigree at least) are unimpeachable.

      I believe there are 2 conflicting interests here: right of privacy on one hand, and public interest on the other. This *is* the duty ofbthr press: informing the public about things that are in the public interest. If a bank has toxic loans on its books: it definitely is in the interests of the public (especially depositors).

      Let us leave that aside for a moment, and assume there was no public interest and the Source are in the wrong. The reaction by Econet is definitely overbearing and infringes on the privacy of The Source! How can you be certwins the troves of emails they copied only related to the “stolen” material? They might as have been unrelated confidential information on Econet’s competition, for example.

      Econet should not have been involved in the raid: it should have been executed by the police and possibly neutral 3rd party experts.

      There is a salient point that is being glossed over: The Source did not steal the documents: they merely received them from a whistleblower. (who mihht have broken a law or a broken a contract doing so). This is how journalism works: this why Ed Snowden is in exile and Greg Greenwald is accepting awards in the US.

      Let’s discuss motivation: What was Econet hoping to achieve with the raid? Pandora’s box is open already. One interpretation is that this is intimidation, pure and simple. Econet deserve all the backlash they are getting (and more)

      They might have been acting on the law, but that law is (likely) unconstitutional.

      1. But Econet was AUTHORISED by the HIGH COURT and were operating well within the provisional order.

        Did you read the order?

        Did you note item 4 (the anton pillar) that authorizes search & seizure without notice.

        “An anton pillar order be and is hereby issued authorizing the applicants, their legal practitioners and technology experts with the assistance of…”

        I dont know if you can argue with a High Court order. But humor me.

          1. Please explainat which point the context differs
            * insider acquires secret confidential documents
            * insider decides to become a whistleblower on what they judge to be a public interest topic
            * insider shares illegally acquired document with a journalist
            * The NSA and sherrifs kick down the journalists doors down in a raid. Oops, sorry – that didn’t happen.

          2. My point relied heavily on the different contexts: I’m hoping you will agree that Snowden’s crime was way more serious that this TN Bank leak, yet Greg Greenwald was never so much as interviewed by the police. That is freedom of the press.

            Perhaps you would like to explain how the contexts are different?

        1. I nevenever suggested that police/Econet’s actions were illegal, merely that I find the actions reprehensible and morally wrong (and possibly unconstitutional).

          In my conclusion, I explicitly said Econet were following the law.

          I dont know if you can argue with a High Court order. But humor me.

          As a matter of fact, one can argue with a High Court order by approaching a higher court (Supreme Court or Constitutional Court).Incidentally, this is what The Source is different.

        2. I nevenever suggested that police/Econet’s actions were illegal, merely that I find the actions reprehensible and morally wrong (and possibly unconstitutional).

          In my conclusion, I explicitly said Econet were following the law.

          I dont know if you can argue with a High Court order. But humor me.

          As a matter of fact, one can argue with a High Court order by approaching a higher court (Supreme Court or Constitutional Court).Incidentally, this is what The Source is doing

  2. After reading the High court order, I dont see why people think Econet is wrong. If the high court has ruled and there are not appeals to a higher court, then the order gets executed. Gutter journalism always leads to trouble with the law, apa ndiri kumhanya ne Econet

    1. econet is a big bully and abuses us daily with extortionist rates – now they want to cover up items that we have every right to know about? They are not just some private company – they offer a service to the public, and should STRIVE to do so cleanly.

        1. mad, or is it insane? Compare costs to the rest of the world. Step outside your nursery school playground mindset. waste of time.

          1. The rest of the world doesnt have the operational challenges Zim has. Like installing huge fuel guzzling generators for every base station because, you know, ZESA. If I want to hate on Econet, then I will compare them with firms operating in the same economic environment.

  3. sick journalists crying about ethics which you do not have yet you never raised an eyebrow on Dzamara’s abduction. the court order was obtained legally and the source can equally apply for one to defend themselves. you sit and attack innocents yet when you are attacked you cry foul. do not bite more than what you cannot chew. cheap journalists. you want sympathy to make a name . go to hell.

  4. What is the difference with this high court order and the Bulayayo high court order (number HC 1204/14) issued on June 27 against Ndhlukula, which Chief Superintendent Samuriwo said it was not his duty to enforce it?

Comments are closed.