Zimpapers Logo

Former board chairperson Mrs Gloria Mawarire, board member Mark Tsomondo and administrator Tichaona Muhonde are now expected to give evidence as State witnesses.
Only ex-ZMDC chief executive Dominic Mubaiwa and Core Mining director Lovemore Kurotwi will answer to the fraud charges.

When director of public prosecutions    Mrs Florence Ziyambi applied for withdrawal of the charges against the trio, lawyers representing Mubaiwa and Kurotwi challenged the procedure adopted by the State.
But Justice Chinembiri Bhunu on Tuesday ruled: “It is clear that the section (76 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe) clothes the AG (Attorney-General) with an unfettered absolute discretion to withdraw criminal proceedings he has instituted at any stage of the proceedings.
“It thus follows that once the AG has decided to exercise his discretion under Section 76(4)C of the Constitution, no person or authority, including the courts, can question his decision in this respect.
“It is trite that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the mother of all laws.
“It takes precedence over any other subordinate laws.
“That being the case, it is not necessary to consider the provisions of sections 137 and 168 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, save to observe that they do not bar the AG from exercising his powers under section 76 of the Constitution.”

Chief law officer Mr Chris Mutangadura assisted Mrs Ziyambi while Mr George Chikumbirike and Advocate Lewis Uriri appeared for Kurotwi and Mubaiwa.
Soon after the ruling, Mrs Ziyambi rose to read the amended charges against Mubaiwa and Kurotwi but the defence objected saying the State should have first applied for leave to amend the charges.

Mr Chikumbirike argued: “When the accused persons were indicted for trial, the proceedings commenced and any other alterations or amendments should be done through a court application.
“It is actually the court that directs the alterations and the AG cannot usurp the court’s powers by simply reading the new documents in court as if there were no previous indictment papers.”
Adv Uriri said the State’s conduct constituted a breach of the rights to protection of the law and a fair trial.
“No notice was given to the court or to the accused person.
“The AG should not proceed to do what he wishes regardless of what the law says.”

Mrs Ziyambi defended the State’s position saying the suspects were still facing fraud charges.
“The only difference is that the matter now involves two accused persons.
“It is now alleged that they connived with each other to commit the offence and not with three others,” she said.
Mrs Ziyambi undertook to give the defence three days to study the new papers and to craft their defence outlines.
Justice Bhunu deferred his ruling to tomorrow.