Diamond Ring Deal: Grace Mugabe Says She Was Falsely Accused



First Lady Grace Mugabe has denounced a court order regarding her alleged seizure of some properties belonging to Lebanese businessman, Jamal Ahmed due to a failed diamond ring deal.

See Also: Diamond Ring Fiasco: Grace Mugabe Seizes More Houses

Grace Mugabe was ordered to evacuate some properties which she had allegedly seized from Jamal Ahmed, earlier this year. Judge Clement Phiri had issued a provisional order to Grace Mugabe and her son, urging them to vacate the seized properties under 24 hours in order to permit the former occupants to return.

The acclaimed property seizure occurred as a result of a failed diamond ring deal. The diamond ring which was reportedly supposed to be a gift from the President to Grace as their 20th-anniversary gift was paid for, using the First Lady’s local account. In due course, she decided she no longer wanted it and sought a refund, but due to anti-money laundering laws as claimed by Ahmed, the money could not be refunded.

The first Lady has refuted the claim that she seized any properties from Jamal Ahmed, she, however, stated that Ahmed is a fraudster who is wanted by the international police, although his name literally does not appear on Interpol’s list of wanted persons.

First lady Mugabe tagged the court’s decision as erroneous, stating that the properties were seized due to a police investigation, adding that neither she nor her son, Russel Goreraza had been to the premises of the seized properties. She stated that the Lebanese businessman was out to taint her name, and urged the court’s decision to be reversed.

“It is humbly submitted that the interim relief granted by Justice Phiri on December, 2016 must be discharged and in its place be recorded: ‘the application be and is hereby dismissed’.

See Also: Mugabe At 93: ZANU-PF To Slaughter 150 Cattle For This Year’s Bash

“The interim relief was directed towards the respondents who are clearly not connected to the properties in question and therefore it is misplaced and folly for first applicant [Ahmed] to persist with the need to have a flawed order confirmed when instead it must be discharged on the return dates,” the court papers said.