Chimombe, Mpofu freedom bid flops

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

Business partners Mike Chimombe and Moses Mpofu, accused of siphoning millions of dollars from the Presidential Goat Pass-On Scheme, suffered yet another legal blow yesterday as their bail application was dismissed.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Pisirayi Kwenda, ensures that the duo remain in custody until their trial resumes on February 10.

The court’s decision underlines the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the evidence, and the risks associated with granting bail.

Allegations against the two are not mere administrative lapses or technical missteps, but involve the alleged fraudulent misappropriation of substantial public funds.

Justice Kwenda, in his ruling, emphasised the gravity of the case, which revolves around accusations of dishonesty with money meant to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

The Presidential Goat Pass-On Scheme, a programme designed to improve livelihoods, has instead been tainted by allegations of corruption on a grand scale.

Chimombe and Mpofu, however, vehemently deny their involvement, contending that they played no part in the submission of bids or in the diversion of the money in question.

Nevertheless, the court found that the testimony of State witnesses, who claim direct dealings with the accused, creates a solid case that cannot be ignored.

The judge further noted that the State’s evidence remains intact, with witnesses ready to testify about their interactions with Chimombe and Mpofu.

The court has given the case priority, with trials initially commencing in October, but delayed due to procedural issues. Barring any unforeseen complications, the duo’s trial is expected to last a week.

Justice Kwenda pointed out that the accused should, as respected businessmen, be eager to clear their names over the cloud of suspicion hanging over them.

Combined with the serious implications of a potential 20-year sentence, Justice Kwenda reasoned that the incentive to interfere or flee is magnified. The court explained that the presumptive penalty for fraud involving public funds, particularly where the prejudice is significant, begins at 20 years’ imprisonment.

This starting point, the judge stressed, is dictated by sentencing guidelines that apply to cases involving aggravating circumstances.

Such a severe penalty, he argued, could easily spur the accused to abscond from the trial, irrespective of any surety offered.

The accused had attempted to assure the court of their intention to stand trial by offering title deeds to a property and surrendering their passports.

However, the court dismissed these measures as inadequate, pointing out that the risks of interference and non-attendance of the trial far outweigh the value of such sureties.

“The sureties cannot address the gravity of the charges or the risks involved,” Justice Kwenda remarked, ultimately finding that the seriousness of the alleged crimes rendered the accused unsuitable for bail.

Adding to their woes, Chimombe and Mpofu face another charge involving the loss of public funds for which no recoveries were made.

This separate case, ready for trial, carries a similarly severe presumptive penalty, further compounding the risk of flight. Moreover, indictment papers for yet another pending fraud case involving the two have already been prepared, and the trial is scheduled for this term.

The accused now find themselves entangled in a web of criminal proceedings, with the court noting that the multiplicity of cases against them creates an even stronger incentive to abscond.

Justice Kwenda also addressed the defence’s concerns about delays, clarifying that the trial experienced only minimal interruptions and has been given priority over other cases.

The court has ensured that proceedings will not be unnecessarily protracted, with a conclusion likely in February.

As such, the judge found no reason to release the accused on bail when the end of the trial is within sight.

In dismissing the application, Justice Kwenda delivered a stern reminder of the court’s duty to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

Allegations in this case, rooted in the misuse of public resources, strike at the heart of public trust.

The accused, while entitled to the presumption of innocence, must remain in custody to ensure that justice is not only, done but seen to be done.

The severity of the charges, the strength of the State’s case, and the risks of interference and flight all converged to form an unassailable argument for continued detention.