By A Correspondent| In a new twist to the Frank Buyanga child-abduction case, the man has reported saying his 5 year old child who he kidnapped from the mother early last week, traveled to South Africa, then flew over to Dubai; Buyanga now says the 5 year old son has now been stolen from him in Dubai.

He is now saying the mother has since seized the child from him in Dubai.

The Buyanga case has seen 3 abduction claims being by Mr Buyanga.

On the 11th March he accused the First Family for abducting his child.

He would himself abduct the child, and violently so last week on the 26th March in Waterfalls, Harare.

Soon after a warrant of arrest was issued after him for child abduction, attempted murder, and armed robbery, Buyanga now reports that he has fled to South Africa, and then on to Dubai, with the child, and then to suddenly claim that the child has been kidnapped in the UAE.

Clear UAE government travel data shows that it is illegal to fly into that country in the last 10 days, which fact places firm doubts on his claim that he landed there. 

The UAE is not subject to the Hague Convention, which places responsibility on that government to return the child to his country of origin and obey Zimbabwean court orders.

The development comes as there are two court orders barring him from removing the child from Zimbabwe.

It also comes as Buyanga while saying he is now in Dubai, is on another hand announcing he is in fact still in Zimbabwe.

His lawyer Wilson Manase wrote to the registrar of the High Court saying he was “now out of the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

Manase added: “He left and he is out of the country on business with the child. This application therefore has been overtaken by events. We believe that while the horse has bolted, this application has become irrelevant in so far as its intents are concerned.

“The applicant (Muteswa), if need be, must apply for an order she may seek in the country where the child may be.”

Manase said Buyanga had not broken any law as he had been granted joint custody of the child by the High Court.

“Our client, therefore, did not act in a manner which transgresses the law. The purported appeal by the applicant against Justice (Happious) Zhou’s judgement lapsed as it was not correctly served to the first respondent. In this regard, the appeal is a nullity,” Manase added

– MORE FOLLOWS