Chronicle Editor
Vusumuzi Dube, Online News Editor
BULAWAYO Deputy Mayor, Councillor Edwin Ndlovu and the chairperson of the Finance and Development Committee, Councillor Mpumelelo Moyo have applied for bail at the High Court.
The duo was arrested on 14 November after allegedly demanding a US$20 000 “facilitation” fee from a cement factory investor.
The two were remanded in custody until 30 November du ring their initial appearance before Bulawayo magistrate, Mrs Evia Matura.
According to the State outline they were charged with bribery as defined in Section 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23).
The two accused’s lawyers- Mr Prince Butshe Dube of Mathonsi Law Chambers representing Moyo and Mr Zibusiso Ncube of Ncube and Partners representing Ndlovu have since confirmed that they have each filed for bail at the High Court.
The bail hearing has been set for 30 November.
In his bail application, which was filed at the High Court on 20 November, Ndlovu notes that the State’s case is “sinking sand.”
He further denies any knowledge of the complainant, Tsitsi Mapfumo who is the representative of the Chinese company – Labenmon Investments.
“I shall plead not guilty to the allegations, I gave a detailed warned and cautioned statement indicating that I do not even know the said Tsitsi Mapfumo. I deny the allegations levelled against me. The allegations are fictitious, malicious and scandalous.
“My legal practitioner specifically asked the Zacc officer in my presence on what basis I was being linked to the matter. Their response was that I allegedly wrote a list of names of 20 councillors purported to be given US$20 000. I immediately vehemently denied ever writing the alleged list or any list at all. Together with my legal practitioner, we insisted on having sight of the so-called list. However, none was furnished to me,” reads part of the Deputy Mayor’s application.
Ndlovu further revealed that he was not part of that trap as he had never been in the complainant’s house.
He further dismisses the assertion that he is a bad candidate for bail as it is believed he will most likely interfere with evidence and other State witnesses on the basis that he allegedly called someone to influence the officers to stop his detention in the cells.
“I have no reason to interfere with the councillors who are independent people. If anything, all this could be politicking and would, I rather not do anything to anyone relating to the case. Hence, I indicated my preparedness to abide by an order not to interfere with witnesses.
“The person I called was my wife to advice her of the turn of events. I also phoned the Town Clerk to give an update. I did mention that I was of the firm view that my detention was unlawful. If ever I had called anyone to influence the police and Zacc officers, they surely would have stated as much,” reads the application.
He further notes that he cannot also be viewed as a threat to the complainant as he did not know her nor has he been at her house.
Online Reporter