He was facing
two fraud charges in which he was being accused of faking results of tests
conducted on two patients at his hospital.
He owns Pacific
24 Hours Hospital in Mabvuku and the allegations were damning.
When
investigators raided his hospital, they seized 40,000 patient files.
In the first
count, the allegations were that on May 22, 2020, Dr Mandaza allegedly duped
his patient, Sandra Bed.
“It was alleged
that the accused, with an intent to defraud his patient Sandra Bed,
misrepresented to the complainant that, after taking blood samples from her
renal function tests, he was going to take them to a registered Medical
Laboratory for tests.
“But, the
accused did not do so, instead, the accused manufactured fictitious
computer-generated results, using his laptop, which he endorsed on a
non-existent sampling diagnostics Laboratory letter head which he also
authenticated by date stamping with a date stamp which he kept in his drugs
locker.”
The second
count had a similar ringing tone.
“It’s alleged
on the 11th of February 2021 and at Pacific 24 hours Hospital Mabvuku Harare
the accused, with an intent to defraud his patient Simbisai Chisuwe,
misrepresented to the complainant that after taking blood samples from her
renal function tests he was going to take them to a registered Medical
Laboratory for tests.
“But, the
accused did not do so. Instead, on the 13th of February 2021, the accused
manufactured fictitious computer-generated results, using his laptop, which he
endorsed on a non-existent sampling diagnostics Laboratory letter head”
In his defence
outline, Dr Mandaza said he did not make any misrepresentation to the
complainants.
He claimed this
was a fabricated case from his enemies who raised false alarms to ZACC and
ZIMRA.
Around 40,000
files were seized by ZACC officials and only three were said to have contained
fake results.
The witness
accounts
Justice Hungwe
noted that Sandra Bed said she was summoned to an interview by ZACC officers
who informed her that she had been issued with fake results by Dr Mandaza.
She, however,
told court that she was not shown which results were being referred to.
She said Dr
Mandaza has been her doctor for a long time and he had always discharged his
duties in a professional manner.
Shepherd Gumiro
represented the Health Profession Authority and told the court he was called by
ZACC officials and was asked about a certain laboratory which was registered
along Robson Manyika.
He said he
checked their register and found out that the laboratory was not registered.
Fungai
Makotore, an inspector at Health Professions Authority, told the court they
visited Dr Mandaza’s residential address and business premises, where patient
files, expired medicines and a stamp were confiscated.
The confiscated
stamp had an address which they could not locate and she said it raised
suspicion.
Under cross
examination, she was asked if she had witnessed the stamp being recovered, and
she told the court she was only informed a stamp had been recovered but she did
not see it and did not know how it was recovered.
Shingai Mudede,
the principal investigating officer at ZACC, said he received a tip-off on the
malpractice by Dr Mandaza and visited his hospital.
A number of
files were seized and three files, said Mudede, matched the allegations.
Mudede said
further investigations revealed that the results were from a non-existing lab
and, therefore, they were fake results.
Mudede said
evidence from a laptop was also recovered and was taken for forensic
examination and the documents which were retrieved matched the allegations.
However, these
documents were not shown in court.
Dr Mandaza
claimed the tip-off was made by some disgruntled employees he had fired.
The doctor
denied any knowledge about the existence of the stamp in question and said the
locks of the cabinet had been changed without his knowledge.
He claimed his
files were seized and taken away for close to three months and, during all that
time, the ZACC officials were in possession of the files.
He claimed the
three suspicious results could have been tampered with during the time the
files were in the hands of the ZACC officials.
Grace Mbaimbai,
who was employed by the hospital, told the court the stamp was recovered from
was a public space, which was accessible to all hospital staff members.
She said it was
not assigned to a specific doctor.
The ruling
Justice Hungwe,
in his ruling, said:
“In criminal
litigation, the State bears the onus to prove the guilt of an accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
“That includes
to prove the essential elements to the charge and the accused actus reas and
mens rea to commit the offence, that is the act itself and the intention to
commit the offence.
“After leading
evidence, the court should not be left guessing on whether the offence was
committed by accused or not. Accused should be successfully linked to the said
offence. To do so the State can lead real, direct evidence or circumstantial
evidence to substantiate its allegations.
“The accused is
only required to give a probable defence to the allegations which does not
necessarily has to be true.
“In this case,
the State was tasked to establish a link between this accused and the fake
results, whether the accused was responsible for the same.”
He added: “In this case, it is the court’s view the
State did not manage to do so, at least, to the extent of reasonable doubt.
“In that there
was no evidence led as to why the stamp had been attributed to accused.
“There was no
evidence to exclude the possibility that it could have been the act of any
other employee at the hospital.
“Moreso, the
said documents were not tendered before the court for the court to acquaint
itself as to what was being referred to as the fake results.
“The chain of
custody of the seized documents was also put to question, the State was not
able to illustrate to the court how after seizure the patient files were
handled so as to exclude the possibility of any tempering with the same.
“The accused
denied any involved in the manufacture and presentation of the said results and
it was the duty of the State to prove otherwise.
“This is one
typical case where the accused defence seems probable and the state was unable
to disprove it as not probable.
“In the
circumstances, then it is the court’s view the State failed to discharge its
onus and accused is hereby found not guilty and acquitted in both counts.” H
Metro
0 comments:
Post a Comment