Two former Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) executives,
who were fired in 2015, have petitioned the High Court seeking an order to
compel the State broadcaster to provide them with critical documents to enable
them to properly defend themselves of allegations of costing the company
millions of dollars in alleged fraudulent activities.
Former general manager — finance, Elliot Kasu, and former
finance head, Ralph Nyambudzi, filed a chamber application on Wednesday this
week, citing former ZBC chairperson Cuthbert Dube and other ex-bosses of the
State broadcaster, Happison Muchechetere, Allan Chiweshe and Tazzen Mandizvidza
as respondents.
Kasu and Nyambudzi were suspended together with
Muchechetere on allegations of costing the national broadcaster millions of
dollars.
They were also accused of awarding themselves hefty
salaries at a time the troubled national broadcaster’s employees went for more
than six months without salaries.
But Kasu and Nyambudzi said they could not proffer a
reasonable defence to the accusations if the national broadcaster was
withholding critical information which they need to use in support of their
case.
“In proceedings under case number HC 2770/15 awaiting trial
date, applicants (Kasu and Nyambudzi) have sought from the respondents (ZBC,
Dube, Muchechetere, Chiweshe and Mandizvidza) the production of certain
documents by way of formal notice dated February 8, 2017,” the two said.
“The first respondent (ZBC) has produced some of the
documents, save the ones being requested in this application … A full copy of
the KPMG forensic audit report produced on behalf of the first respondent,
copies of payslips for the applicants over the period 2009 to the 2013, copies
of the resolutions made by the board of directors of the first respondent for
the period 2009 to 2013, and copies of correspondences between the plaintiff
and the Minister of Information from September 2009 to December 2009.”
In his founding affidavit, Kasu said the two were seeking
an order compelling their former employer to produce some documents which they
feel will be able to help them defend themselves during trial.
Kasu further said failure to produce the requested
documents could be highly prejudicial to their case.
“The failure by first respondent to produce the said
documents is highly prejudicial to the applicants. It means applicants will not
be able to produce evidence to support the defences they have advanced in this
litigation,” he said.
“Specifically, the first respondent is required to produce
and deliver to the applicants a copy of a letter by the Secretary for
Information authorising the purchase of vehicles by the first respondent.”
The matter is pending. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment