Online Reporter
Zvikomborero Parafini
Court Reporter
Masvingo traditional leader Chief Murinye has been acquitted of extortion charges, bringing to an end a longstanding criminal dispute with businessman Mr Philemon Mutangiri over the operation of Riverton Academy in the Murinye area.
Chief Murinye, born Ephias Munodawafa, was freed by Masvingo regional magistrate Innocent Bepura at the close of the State case after the court upheld his application for discharge.
Through his lawyer Mr Admire Rubaya, Chief Murinye had denied allegations that he demanded the electrification of his homestead for free, indefinite enrolment of his children at Riverton Academy in exchange for allowing the school to operate in his area.
He maintained that the criminal charges were an attempt by Mr Mutangiri to silence him after he raised questions over the legality of the school’s construction and the manner in which the land on which it was built had been acquired.
The State, led by prosecutor Mr Romeo Zibani, alleged that Chief Murinye invited Mr Mutangiri to a meeting where he demanded that the businessman install electricity at his homestead and extend power from his fields towards Boroma Dam.
It was further alleged that the traditional leader demanded that all his children be enrolled at Riverton Academy for free and that Mr Mutangiri enter into a written agreement guaranteeing them free education indefinitely.
Prosecutors also alleged that on January 11, Chief Murinye and Solomon Mukamwe blocked a school bus carrying pupils to Riverton Academy at the Topora-Rukovo Secondary School turn-off and again near the academy. The State alleged that a grey Isuzu twin cab without registration plates and a Nissan Vanette were used during the incident in an attempt to coerce Mutangiri into meeting the alleged demands.
Chief Murinye denied the allegations and, at the close of the State case, applied for discharge, arguing that prosecutors had failed to establish a case requiring him to be placed on his defence.
Mr Rubaya argued that the dispute had its roots in questions raised by traditional leaders over whether the school had been lawfully established.
“The complainant is seeking to persecute the accused person through abuse of the criminal justice system because the accused, as a traditional leader who presides over a community court known as Chief Murinye’s court, made a collective decision together with Headman Clemence Mukamwi and Village Head Marko Machingura that the school ought only to continue being built in their area of jurisdiction after full compliance with due process of the laws of Zimbabwe,” Mr Rubaya submitted.
The defence alleged that the school had been constructed without the necessary development permit, approved building plans and a Masvingo Rural District Council resolution.
Chief Murinye further alleged that the land had been obtained through what he described as “sabhuku deals”, maintaining that the extortion allegations were meant to divert attention from questions surrounding the school’s establishment.
“It is clear that the real issue related to whether the complainant built the school in question in full compliance with the law or not,” Mr Rubaya argued.
“In the circumstances, it can easily be concluded, and rightfully so, that the complaint and the allegations, weak as they are, are purely simulated and have been made solely to harass the accused person for exposing underhand and shady dealings by the complainant regarding State land.”
The traditional leader also denied that Mr Mutangiri had connected electricity to his homestead, saying his residence relied on solar power.
“The accused denies that the complainant connected any electricity at his place of residence since he uses solar power at his house. The complainant is only grandstanding, seeking to look for fame using the accused’s name,” the defence submitted.
Mr Rubaya also challenged the State to establish what threats had allegedly been made against Mr Mutangiri or what benefit the businessman had given Chief Murinye as a consequence of the alleged demands.
The defence described as “laughable” the suggestion that Chief Murinye had sought an arrangement extending free education even to children who had not yet been born.
In opposing the discharge application, the State proposed that if the court found there was insufficient evidence to place Chief Murinye on his defence for extortion, he could instead be placed on his defence for disorderly conduct arising from the alleged blocking of the road leading to the school.
The court rejected the proposal, finding that disorderly conduct had not been charged as an alternative offence from the outset and was not a competent verdict to the extortion charge.
The court subsequently upheld the defence application and acquitted Chief Murinye without putting him to his defence.
