The ex-minister is facing allegations of giving specific
instructions to the management of the National Social Security Authority (NSSA)
to enter into a housing project with a company called Drawcard Enterprises
(Private) Limited (Drawcard).
Mupfumira’s application for discharge was dismissed by
Harare magistrate Mr Ngoni Nduna which did not go down well with her.
Irked by Mr Nduna’s ruling, Mupfumira proceeded to the High
Court challenging the magistrate’s ruling.
The High Court then ruled that there is no reason to
interfere with the lower court’s ruling.
“We are mindful of the fact that the allegations are that
the applicant issued specific instructions to SSA middle management to make
sure that the contract was signed between NSSA and Drawcard within 48 hours of
the Anesu Building meeting.
“We reiterate that we have studied the record of the
proceedings unfolding before the first respondent. We do not see anything or
any basis to descend in that arena when regard is had to the evidence placed
before that court. The case for the prosecution was clear. It was simple,” said
Justice Benjamin Chikowero and Justice Rodgers Manyangadze.
They also noted that according to the prosecution,
Mupfumira committed the offence at the Anesu Building meeting by issuing verbal
instructions to those members of the NSSA middle management present at that
meeting to enter into a contract with Drawcard.
Justice Chikowero said whether the proceedings of that
meeting were minuted “is immaterial for our purposes.”
“The record of proceedings discloses the applicant’s
pivotal involvement in the favourable positioning of Drawcard right from the
Metbank Building Meeting, the Anesu Building Meeting and the applicant’s
unrelenting pressure upon Chihota and Mukondomi to hurriedly conclude the
contract.”
The allegations are that at a time when she was still
serving as a Minister and hence a public officer, she acted contrary to and
inconsistent with her duties by instructing NSSA to enter into a housing
project with Drawcard.
The unlawful instruction was designed to circumvent the
requirement that NSSA goes through its own internal processes culminating in
obtaining board approval as well as going through tender procedures before NSSA
could lawfully enter into the housing project contract.
The prejudice to NSSA was that it did not benefit from the
safeguards inherent in obtaining Board approval and tender procedures before contracting
with Drawcard.
On the other hand, Mupfumira’s specific instructions to
NSSA management to contract with Drawcard favoured the latter because it did
not compete with anybody before “winning” the job and entering into the
contract with NSSA. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment