Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
BUSINESSMEN Mike Chimombe and Moses Mpofu have applied for discharge at the close of the State’s case in their trial over an alleged US$7.7 million fraud linked to the Presidential Goats Pass-On Scheme.
The duo argues the prosecution has failed to present a case warranting their defence.
The trial revolves around a tender awarded to Blackdeck Livestock and Poultry Farming for the supply of goats under the national livestock scheme.
Both Chimombe and Mpofu maintain that the State failed to establish any evidence directly linking them to alleged fraudulent activities.
Represented by Advocate Tapson Dzvetero, Mpofu argues the State’s case lacks a prima facie basis.
Adv Dzvetero highlighted that the evidence presented did not prove Mpofu made any false representations in the bid documents.
He said that Blackdeck (Pvt) Ltd, a legally registered entity, submitted the documents, not Mpofu.
According to Adv Dzvetero, the documents were prepared and signed by other Blackdeck officials, T Chidembo and Hazvinei Kabisira, who are not part of the current proceedings.
He stressed that Mpofu’s role was not linked to the preparation, submission, or signing of the bid documents.
“The absence of evidence connecting Mpofu to the alleged offence means there is no actus reus established against him,” Adv Dzvetero argued.
He also pointed out that the State failed to lift the corporate veil to implicate Mpofu as an individual, a critical legal step in such cases.
Chimombe, represented by Prof Lovemore Madhuku, assisted by Adv Garikayi Sithole and Mr Arshiel Mugiya, echoed similar arguments, asserting that the State failed to establish any direct or inferred evidence linking him to the alleged fraud.
The defence argued that the evidence presented was unreliable and did not demonstrate how Chimombe participated in any misrepresentation or forgery.
The lawyers noted that State witnesses admitted under cross-examination that Chimombe’s involvement was limited to meetings held after Blackdeck had already been awarded the tender. Minutes from these meetings, they argued, do not indicate any misrepresentation by Chimombe.
“The State has failed to show whether the alleged misrepresentation was verbal or written. None of the witnesses could substantiate claims that Chimombe prepared or submitted the bid documents,” the defence submitted.
The prosecution alleges the accused forged ZIMRA tax clearance and NSSA compliance certificates to win the tender, using a phantom company to secure the lucrative contract.
The State maintains the company lacked the capacity to deliver the promised 632 001 goats, resulting in prejudice to the Government.
However, the defence countered that Blackdeck (Pvt) Ltd is a duly registered entity, and the documents originated from legitimate institutions.
They argue the State failed to present evidence proving the accused participated in any forgery or misrepresentation.
Adv Dzvetero said the State’s case is marred by procedural deficiencies.
He contended that the prosecution did not request the court to lift the corporate veil under Section 385 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which would have been necessary to attribute Blackdeck’s actions to Mpofu or Chimombe.
The defence also highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies and the lack of crucial evidence, such as minutes of meetings allegedly attended by Chimombe.
They argued these gaps render the State’s case untenable.
Both defence teams emphasised the principle that an accused can only be put to their defence if the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.
They cited case law to argue that the State must present evidence proving the essential elements of the offence. In this case, they say, no such evidence exists.
The defence further noted that the State’s allegations of fraud focus on events prior to the tender award, but the evidence presented only implicates the accused in events after the award.
This disconnect, they argued, weakens the prosecution’s case.
Chimombe’s legal team argued that forcing him to defend himself against such a weak case would be unfair and costly.
They submitted that the State failed to establish how Chimombe or Mpofu personally benefitted or participated in the alleged fraud.
“The State’s case is built on presumptions, not evidence. No reasonable court could convict based on the evidence presented,” they said.
As the State prepares to file its response by July 15, the defence remains resolute that their clients should be discharged.
