The ManicaPost
Lovemore Kadzura
Rusape Correspondent
EIGHT former Rusape Town Council councillors are jointly suing the local authority, demanding compensation of US$320 000 following their arrest on criminal abuse of office charges during their tenure of office.
The former councillors include Messrs Lyton Sithole, Peter Kwesha, Ndabanengi Mataga, Preference Chigwede, Luckson Zengeni, Patrick Chipere, Joseph Nyamupera and Ms Elizabeth Chidza.
They are each demanding US$40 000 for the alleged malicious arrest and prosecution.
The nine, including Mr Blessmore Pambureni were arrested together with the former acting town secretary, Engineer Charles Chindenga by officials from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC).
They were arrested on criminal abuse of office charges for unprocedurally handpicking two law firms to handle a labour dispute involving former Town Secretary, Mr Solomon Gabaza.
They were acquitted after full trial, and through their lawyer, Mr Taurai Khupe of Khupe and Chijara Law Chambers, the town authorities are now going after the local authority.
They are accusing three council staffers of making statements that sought to incriminate them and testifying against them in court.
The ex-councillors argued that they never cancelled the tender to procure legal services, but in fact it was the town treasurer, procurement manager and internal auditor — who went on to testify against them — who constituted the procurement committee that cancelled the tender process.
“The defendant (RTC) despite having knowledge of why and how the said tender process was cancelled, maliciously made a report against the plaintiffs, alleging that they had abused their offices and cancelled the said tender process.
“The defendant authorised its employees, the same who were responsible for the cancellation of the tender process, to testify against the applicants.
“Each plaintiff wants a payment of US$35 000 being damages for malicious prosecution and US$5 000 each for legal costs incurred,” reads part of the joint application.
The council has opposed the application, arguing that its employees testified in court against the councillors after being subpoenaed by ZACC.
Their lawyers, Absolom and Shepherd Attorneys, argued that ‘the not guilty verdict’ is not a basis for them to seek damages for alleged malicious prosecution.
“The defendant did not institute the alleged malicious prosecution against the plaintiffs.
“The defendant’s witnesses’ participation in the prosecution of plaintiffs, if any, was not motivated by malice.
“The defendant’s officials who participated as witnesses did so in response to a State issued subpoena and being compellable witnesses, were constrained to give evidence.
“A plea of ‘not guilty’ retained by the court in discharging the plaintiffs is not necessarily a basis for plaintiffs to seek damages for alleged malicious prosecution, and maybe an indication that defendant’s officials who stood as witnesses were truthful, unless plaintiffs insinuate that they were actually guilty,” reads the council’s opposing application.
The matter will appear before Rusape magistrate, Ms Rufaro Mangwiro for pre-trial conference.
