The five accused persons were charged with criminal abuse of duty as public officers as defined in section 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].The allegations against them were that between 3-23 May 2017, at ZINARA, the five accused had unlawfully, and in common purpose with ...
The five accused persons were charged with criminal abuse of duty as public officers as defined in section 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
The allegations against them were that between 3-23 May 2017, at ZINARA, the five accused had unlawfully, and in common purpose with each other, in the exercise of their functions and contrary to their duties as public officers, engaged third party companies to source foreign currency on the informal market on behalf of ZINARA.
This was in their capacities as Finance Director, Finance Manager, Accountant, Regional Engineer North, and Director Administration and Human Resources of ZINARA.
The companies in question whom they were said to have sourced were Access Finance (Pvt) Ltd, Grayriver (Pvt) Ltd, and Caudless Trading (Pvt) Ltd.
The five accused were said to have made payments amounting to US$2,940,558=69 to these three companies as consideration towards the servicing of a loan owed by ZINARA to the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) without authority of ZINARA Board of Directors for the purpose of showing favour to these three companies.
The first accused, Simon Mudzingwa Taranhike is the Finance Director of ZINARA. The second accused, Shadreck Matengabadza is the Finance Manager. The third accused, Stephen Matute, is the Accountant. The fourth accused, Givemore Tendai Kufa, is the Regional Engineer North, whilst the fifth accused, Precious Murove, is the Director Administration and Human Resources of ZINARA.
Each pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Their core defence was that the payments were not made on behalf of ZINARA but on behalf of Infralink (Pvt) Ltd (Infralink), and that, as such, ZINARA lacked locus standi in the matter.
Their resultant standpoint was that they could not have abused their duties as public officers when they were transacting on behalf of the private company.
Furthermore, they argued, that, in view of the circumstances surrounding the payment of the monies in settlement of the loan, the ZINARA Board itself, through its lawyers, had since withdrawn charges....,.
They also drew attention, in their defence, to the letter written to the National Prosecuting Authority by their lawyers on behalf of the ZINARA Board, prior to the commencement of the trial.
The letter highlighted that the Board was never appraised of the criminal charges against its officers. Furthermore, there was no Board resolution from ZINARA authorising anyone to institute a criminal report. It additionally highlighted that ZINARA and Infralink are, at law, two separate legal entities and that ZINARA had no locus standi.
The letter equally emphasised the context under which the payments had been made, and, in particular, the dire contractual consequences of failure to pay. It concluded that:
“The ZINARA Board fully accepts that it is lawfully bound to assist the National Prosecution Authority in combating corruption and criminal conduct and would not spare any effort or resource in supporting the prosecution of a deserving case. However, the ZINARA Board's impartial consideration of the facts at hand has prompted the need to alert the National Prosecuting Authority on the needless damage that may arise to the standing of ZINARA in circumstances where, in its view, no palpable wrong was done.”
The State took a different view.
It proceeded on the basis of being the dominus litis, and, that, the accused persons had a case to answer.
