FORMER Harare town clerk Tendai Mahachi and three other top
council managers have been acquitted of corruptly awarding tenders’ worth over
$32 million due to insufficient evidence.
Mahachi, town treasurer Misheck Mubvumbi, waste water
manager Simon Muserere and water director Christopher Zvobgo were charged for
corruptly awarding tenders worth $32 million to two companies for refurbishment
works without following the laid down procedure.
They were charged along with four councillors – Wilton
Janjazi, Urayayi Mangwiro, Masiye Kapare and Paula Macharangwa. The crime was
allegedly committed at the height of the cholera outbreak that hit Harare in
2009.
As part of efforts to respond to the cholera outbreak,
council officials were supposed to attend to sewer systems, which are deemed to
be a manjor cause of water contamination at the time.
This process involved finding contractors to do the job. It
was the selection process that led to their arrest and prosecution. Allegations
were that their selection and awarding of tenders was as contaminated as the
city’s effluent-filled water.
They were charged with two counts of criminal abuse of
office as public officers, which they all denied. The eight accused persons
proffered individual defences to the charges when their trial began at the High
Court before Justice Amy Tsanga.
The sum total of their not guilty pleas was that they did
everything above board. The year-long trial was concluded in January this year
and Justice Tsanga on Monday cleared the eight of both charges of awarding two
companies —Energy Resources Africa Consortium (ERAC) and SIDAL – tenders
without open competitive bidding.
In acquitting the eight, the judge noted that a full
council meeting made a decision to award the contracts making it difficult to
conclude that the eight were motivated by the intention to show favour to ERAC
as opposed to responding to the cholera outbreak.
“We do not believe that any evidence of a conclusive nature
was presented to show that they were motivated by the intention to abuse their
public office when they obtained the resolution in the defective manner that
they did,” she said.
“There may sometimes be a fine line between inefficiency
and abuse of office.”
The court also found that while there was evidence of
anomalies and irregularities in how the council bosses conducted the process
against what the law provides, the framing of the charges of connivance and
common purpose fell far too short of being supported by facts. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment