onlinemedia
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
BUSINESS partners Moses Mpofu and Mike Chimombe, accused of defrauding the Government under a national initiative linked to the Presidential Goats scheme, await the High Court’s judgment next Wednesday on whether the prosecution made a case that they must answer in their defence.
At the heart of the case lies the alleged manipulation of a tender process for the Presidential Goat Pass-on Scheme, a project valued at $87 million and aimed at empowering rural communities by providing livestock to enhance livelihoods and food security.
Prosecutors argue that Mpofu and Chimombe, acting through Blackdeck Pvt Ltd, secured the contract through misrepresentation.
The State contends that the accused knowingly used fraudulent documents, including forged ZIMRA and NSSA certificates, to create the illusion of eligibility.
Mr Whisper Mabhaudi, representing the State, told the court on Monday during closing that the evidence presented was clear and conclusive.
He accused Mpofu and Chimombe of acting in concert, using Blackdeck as a vehicle to defraud the Government and divert public funds.
“The totality of the evidence proves the case beyond any reasonable doubt,” Mr Mabhaudi asserted, dismissing the defence’s arguments as implausible and unsupported by facts.
In response, the defence teams sought to dismantle the State’s claims, accusing it of failing to prove the charges. “There is no actus reus (actual intention), no mens rea (mental intention), and no evidence of intent to deceive,” they argued.
Advocate Tapson Dzvetero, representing Mpofu, challenged the prosecution’s case, asserting that it lacked direct evidence implicating his client.
“The circumstantial evidence presented by the State fails to eliminate alternative explanations,” he submitted.
Adv Dzvetero emphasised that Blackdeck Private Limited—a registered company—submitted the tender, not Mpofu personally.
He argued that Ministry officials dealt directly with Blackdeck and not its trade names.
He further noted that the board of directors selected the trade names, and there was no proof Mpofu was involved in procuring the forged certificates.
“The State failed to lead any witness who could directly link the accused to the alleged misrepresentation,” Adv Dzvetero argued, pointing out that payments were made to the company, not Mpofu.
He also highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of the State’s witnesses.
For Chimombe, Professor Lovemore Madhuku also moved for acquittal, insisting the State had failed to build a credible case.
“Even the circumstantial evidence which the State sought to rely on cannot point to an adverse inference,” Prof Madhuku stated.
He dissected the legal elements of fraud, arguing that the State had not proven misrepresentation or intent to deceive under Section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (chap 9:23).
He argued that the circumstantial evidence was legally insufficient, stating, “For circumstantial evidence to be probative, it must exclude every reasonable inference other than guilt. The State has failed to provide any such facts.”
Prof Madhuku dismissed claims of “association,” emphasising that Chimombe’s company, Millytake, was merely a subcontractor brought in after Blackdeck secured the tender.
“The State’s case collapses because there is no evidence linking my client to the alleged misrepresentation,” he concluded.
Both defence lawyers pressed for acquittal, arguing that the State’s case lacked a solid foundation.
The High Court must now evaluate the evidence and decide whether the prosecution’s allegations hold firm or if, as the defence argues, the case is built on conjecture.
Online Reporter