By Staff Reporter
Former NSSA Boss, Robin Vela, has come out gun blazing accusing Jayesh Shah of Al Shams Global (“Shah”) of misleading the public through a sponsored media campaign (aimed at curtailing the due processes of the courts) that is distorting facts regarding the ongoing legal wrangle over a debt his company entered into.
According to Robin Vela, claims that his corporate entity (in which he is guarantor) owes AI Shams USD$1.182 million are manipulated as no court has granted judgement on the debt claim being fronted by Shah in his media campaign.
“The article, touted to several journalists over the last month, is sponsored by Jayesh Shah of Al Shams Global (“Shah”). It is factually incorrect with omissions in material aspects which include the fundamental fact that Shah does not have a court judgment in his favour for US$1.182 million,” said Vela.
According to the former UK banker, Shah only disbursed a total capital amount of USD$985,000 in four batches, over a period of time, of which USD$430,000 was repaid. But Shah, according to court records wants to be repaid an additional USD$1.182 million despite collecting repayments along the way.
The article seeks to give the impression that the provisional sentence debt claimed amount is admitted; fails to acknowledge that repayments have been made; and / or that Shah has (in his lawyers’ possession) the title deeds to a prime Harare CBD Block of Apartments with a dual bank accredited valuation of USD$1.8 million.
“The High court granted Shah the right to proceed to provisional sentence summons, dismissing Vela’s claim for a Concourt referral on the material aspect of the usury / induplum rule. That is very different to the presumption that a judgement debt has already been determined. The article further vindictively seeks to imply no repayments have been made to Shah,” stated Vela.
Vela added that: “The matter is still very much alive and before the courts, we are appealing to the Supreme Court for referral to the Constitutional Court, primarily on the seeking of clarification on the usury / induplum rule which has been topic of late when the government withheld December 2025 loan repayments to lenders for the government employee loans on the basis of the usury / induplum rule.”
Vela further complained that the article was published without him being given the “right to reply” as would be expected as standard practice with ethical and professional journalism. Such a right would have avoid clear errors in the reporting.
