The Herald (Zimbabwe)

POTRAZ BOSS WANTS CHARGES QUASHED:

- Tendai Rupapa Senior Reporter

POSTAL and Telecommun­ications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (Potraz) director-general Gift Machengete, who is facing charges of contraveni­ng the Procuremen­t Act, has made an applicatio­n for exception.

Machengete argued that he did not act unlawfully in any way, adding that the facts as alleged by the State, did not disclose how the offence was committed.

When he initially appeared in court, Machengete was charged with criminal abuse of office or alternativ­ely “inducing a procuring entity to engage in procuremen­t by a method that is prohibited by the Act of public procuremen­t and disposal of public asset regulation­s”.

The prosecutio­n abandoned the main charge and is now pursuing the alternativ­e charge of contraveni­ng the Procuremen­t Act.

In his applicatio­n for exception, Machengete, through his lawyers Messrs Selby Hwacha and Farai Zuva, seeks to have the charge quashed.

“On the face of it, the charge as read with the State outline is completely devoid of any details, particular­s, facts or informatio­n as to how the accused allegedly induced or intended to induce Potraz as a procuring entity to engage in a procuremen­t by a method that is prohibited by the Act.

“Facts alleging inducement are critical.

“The word induce refers to at least some elements of coercion, force, improper or immoral persuasion.

“In the absence of anything in the charge and or outline of the State case particular­ising exactly how the accused allegedly induced or intended to induce Potraz to adopt the alleged prohibited procuremen­t method, the charge is vague and embarrassi­ng.

“It does not constitute a cognisable and certain offence to which the accused person can be asked to answer.

“It is not legally tenable for an accused to plead to a charge in which there is no averment as to how he allegedly committed the offence.

“Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act specifical­ly provides that a charge can be quashed, where it is calculated to embarrass an accused person in the conduct of his defence,” reads part of the applicatio­n.

Machengete yesterday appeared before magistrate Mr Hoseah Mujaya and the matter was remanded to March 25 for trial.

The prosecutio­n is expected to respond to the applicatio­n on that date.

It is the State’s case that Machengete caused Potraz to purchase 24 containeri­sed village informatio­n centres from Smart Building Solutions Ltd for $1 494 104,33 by way of quotations instead of the competitiv­e bidding method as required by the Act.

 ??  ?? Gift Machengete
Gift Machengete

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe