Millers sue government over grain prices #zimbabwe

The Grain Millers Association in conjunction with the Grain
and Oil Seed Traders Association have taken the
government to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) seeking
an order to have the gazetted maize prices declared invalid
and unconstitutional.
On Friday, the two associations filed a ConCourt application
challenging Statutory Instrument (Minimum Grain Producer
Prices) Regulations 2014 (SI 122 of 2014), arguing that the
legal instrument was constitutionally invalid and violated
their rights as enshrined in sections 56 (1) as read with
sections 134 (b) and 194 (1) (e) of the Constitution.
Agriculture Mechanisation and Irrigation Development
minister Joseph Made (pictured right), Attorney-General
and Agricultural Marketing Authority were cited as
respondents in the application.
The looming court battle followed an announcement by the
government sometime in April this year stating that Cabinet
had approved a maize producer price of no less than US$
390 per tonne for the 2014/15 marketing season.
Early this month, the associations said, the Agricultural
Marketing Authority threatened to prosecute anyone who
purchased grain at a price lower than that stipulated in the
April's government gazette.
The associations further said that prior to the gazetting of
the maize prices by the government, its members had
bought maize from various producers and farmers for prices
that ranged from US$280 to US$300 per tonne.
They argued that they were not bound by the government's
gazetted price of US$390 per tonne of maize as that only
applied to the State's strategic grain buyer -- Grain
marketing Board (GMB).
They added that the price was announced after they had
already agreed on new prices with contract farmers.
The associations said their members, who were buying
maize at negotiated prices ranging from US$280 to US$300
per tonne, were taken aback when Made announced this
month that anyone who purchased grain at a price lower
than the stipulated price would be prosecuted.
"At the time the 2nd respondent [Made] announced the US$
390 per tonne floor maize producer price, such did not apply
to the applicants and their constituent members. Therefore
the legal regime at that time did not require them to pay
such a price and left them at liberty to conclude prices that
were lower," the associations said.
"The first applicant's interpretation of operation and import
of statutory instrument 122/14 retrospectively criminalises
the applicant's member's previously legal conduct. Such is
constitutionally offensive as it violates the protection of the
law provision."
Turning to the issues of the marketing season, the
associations said SI 122 of 2014 was "impermissibly
vague" since it did not define when the agricultural
marketing seasons would begin and when it would end.
"This is a material issue as the said instrument clearly
states that the 2nd respondent [Made] can only announce
floor prices at the beginning of the marketing season. The
said instrument does not state what happens if the 2nd
respondent does not set the minimum price, it is to be
assumed that the producer and buyers can set their own
prices, or does it mean that the buyers and producers revert
to the prices of the previous marketing season," the
associations asked.
"Considering the criminal penalties levied in terms of
section 4 of SI 122 of 2014 such vagueness is
constitutionally impermissible and for such reason the SI
should be quashed."
The cited respondents are yet to respond to the application
and the matter is likely to be heard when the ConCourt
opens for the third term next month.