Guvamombe faces fresh charges Suspended Chief Magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe (centre) — (Picture by Lee Maidza)

Herald Reporter
Suspended chief magistrate Mishrod Guvamombe was yesterday arrested and charged with interfering with a magistrate involved in a matter in which he allegedly had conflict of interest. The fresh charges come barely three weeks after he appeared in court on similar charges.

He was arrested for offering internship to former of Information Communication Technology and Cyber Security Minister Supa Mandiwanzira and former Minister of Local Government, Rural Development and National Housing Saviour Kasukuwere who are both studying law at the University of Zimbabwe.

The duo is being tried for different offences within the same courts.

Guvamombe was not formally charged on the fresh charges of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer when he appeared before regional magistrate Mr Morgan Nemadire yesterday.

He was remanded out of custody to February 28 after the court granted his application for bail on similar terms in the other case.

However, the court varied the bail conditions. It extended his reporting conditions from three to four times a week, while the surety was upped from $30 000 to $50 000, to secure him for trial.

The State led by Mr Zivanai Machara had strenuously opposed bail, arguing that Guvamombe was likely to interfere with State witnesses.

He also implored the court to consider that the severity of prosecution case, which he said was likely to induce him to evade trial. But Mr Nemadire ruled that the State failed to advance compelling reasons justifying refusal of bail.

The defence led by Mr Jonathan Samukange asked the court to grant his client bail, saying the State case was extremely weak to induce his client to flee.

He said his client was on bail in a similar case and has complied with the stringent bail conditions, hence there was no need to deny him bail given the conduct he exhibited so far.

Charges against Guvamombe arose sometime in June 2017, when magistrate Mr Elijah Makomo was assigned a criminal case in which one Nathan Mnaba was the accused and Nighert Savania the complainant.

During the trial, numerous applications were allegedly made by the defence which were dismissed due to lack of merit.

This allegedly prompted the defence to approach Mr Makomo, who was presiding over the matter on June 26, 2017 demanding that he recuses himself from the case.

Mr Makomo is said to have turned down the request and advised them to file their application with the High Court or make a formal application with him.

On the return date, the parties reported back and informed him that they had not filed a formal application of recusal, instead they maintained that he should simply recuse himself without any application, the court heard.

He declined and deferred the matter to July 18 to allow them to comply with the court’s directive.

On the same date, the court heard that Mr Hosea Mujaya, a senior regional magistrate and then Makomo’s superior advised him to report to Guvamombe’s office with Nathan’s court record.

Makomo complied and he was told by Guvamombe in the presence of Mr Mujaya that he was mishandling the matter and as such he should recuse himself despite that there was no formal application from the defence for his recusal.

The court heard that Guvamombe went on to handle the complainant despite the fact that he had had a previous business relationship with Nathan’s father, Mr Manson Mnaba.

Guvamombe had in June 2011 bought a piece of land, stand 50 Carrick Creagh, Borrowdale Estate measuring 5 ha.

As a result of Guvamombe’s alleged interference and unlawful instruction, Mr Makomo recused himself despite that there was neither a formal application nor lawful reason for his recusal.

Guvamombe, the court further heard, eventually allocated Nathan’s record to another magistrate and was later found not guilty and acquitted.

According to the indictment, Guvamombe acted contrary and inconsistent to his duties as a public officer by involving himself in a matter he had a conflict of interest and unlawfully interfered with the magistrate.

You Might Also Like

Comments