His show of
remorse came as the pre-sentencing inquiry took a pivotal turn, compelling him
to confront the repercussions of his actions that had tarnished the
Presidential Goat Scheme.
On the cusp of
a verdict that could seal his fate, Mpofu could no longer suppress his urge for
repentance.
When prosecutor
Mr Whisper Mabhaudi pressed him about his apparent lack of remorse towards the
people of Zimbabwe, Mpofu responded swiftly, “I want to express my deepest
regrets to President Mnangagwa and the entire nation for my missteps.
“My actions
contributed to the failure of a noble initiative aimed at supporting our
people.”
Mr Mabhaudi’s
pointed remarks challenged Mpofu’s sincerity.
“Your silence
on the suffering of those affected speaks volumes,” he said, emphasising that
it was time for accountability.
Mpofu, a figure
clad in khakis and visibly conflicted, met the prosecutor’s scrutiny with a
reluctant nod, acknowledging that the apology he harboured within him had been
waiting for the right moment to emerge.
“I accept the
court’s judgment,” he stated with solemnity, reflecting on the gravity of his
conviction.
“Yet, I must
clarify that I am not the sole architect of this debacle. This was largely a
Blackdeck affair, and I explained my position during my defence.”
When Mr
Mabhaudi inquired why he hadn’t addressed the pain inflicted upon the scheme’s
beneficiaries, Mpofu articulated a stirring resolve.
“The words for
an apology have been swirling in my mind,” he admitted, his voice layered with
urgency.
“I intended to
demonstrate my remorse, starting with President Mnangagwa. But…”
He trailed off
as the prosecutor interjected, suggesting that perhaps the apology was more
instinctive than genuine.
Given a rare
moment to address the court directly, Mpofu seized the opportunity.
“To the people
of Zimbabwe, I am truly sorry. Each day, I regret that the Presidential Goat
Scheme did not fulfil its promise.
“As a proud
local business figure, I believe in the potential of Government initiatives.”
He then pointed
fingers at Blackdeck, attributing negligence to its directors for failing to
conduct due diligence.
“Had they been
vigilant, they could have exposed the fraudulent documents before it spiralled
into this chaos.”
In contrast,
co-convict Mike Chimombe wasted no time as his legal counsel, Mr Asheal Mugiya,
urgently implored the court to reconsider the presumptive 20-year sentence.
“While the law
may suggest a harsh penalty, there are vital mitigating factors that deserve
consideration,” he argued passionately, urging the court to reflect upon
Chimombe’s role and responsibilities in this complex narrative.
Chimombe’s
defence further resonated with moral intricacies.
Professor
Lovemore Madhuku delineated how his client was ensnared in events that unfolded
well after the tender had been awarded.
“The court
identified him merely as a co-perpetrator,” he argued, emphasising that
Chimombe could not be deemed the principal perpetrator in this vast web of
deceit.
Digging deeper
into the State’s negligence, Prof Madhuku asserted: “The tender committee,
headed by legal experts, failed to spot the fraud at the earliest stages. Their
oversight allowed this travesty to occur.”
With pointed
clarity, he called upon the court to recognise the systemic failures that
enabled this crisis.
As the
courtroom drama unfolded, it became clear that the ramifications transcended
mere individual culpability.
Prof Madhuku
urged the court to send a resounding message: the failings lay as much with the
state machinery as with Mpofu and Chimombe.
“Let it be
known that accountability is not confined to the actions of two men but also
extends to those tasked with safeguarding public resources,” he implored.
Both men stand
on the precipice of judicial judgment, having been convicted last month of
orchestrating a fraudulent scheme that siphoned off a staggering US$7,7 million
intended for the nation’s goats.
Only a
fraction, a mere 4 000 of the promised 85 000 goats, ever made it to the
beneficiaries, leaving countless rural families in despair.
Chimombe
boasted assets exceeding US$1 million, yet as he gazed at the courtroom floor,
he seemed a picture of a man laden with guilt—one who needed to compensate for
his actions and provide for his 15 children and three wives.
But the
prosecution remained steadfast, armed with the belief that their moral
culpability was monumental.
“They enriched
themselves at the expense of the fragile and vulnerable, undermining a project
meant for the poorest citizens,” Mr Mabhaudi asserted, advocating for a firm
sentence that would resonate beyond the walls of the courthouse.
“A lenient
sentence would not only tarnish justice but would also rob the impoverished of
their voice.”
With the judge
listening intently, the courtroom became a battleground for justice, as both
sides presented their narratives, each clamouring for a verdict that would
dictate the future not just for the accused but for a nation yearning for
accountability.
With the final
decision looming, the stakes have never been higher. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment