admin
Fidelis Munyoro
SIX former Natpharm board members facing allegations of failing to retire managing director, Florah Nancy Sifeko, when her tenure of office lapsed, will now go on trial after their application seeking to have the charges quashed failed at the High Court.
Former board chairman Billy Rigava, his then deputy Rachael Chibaya, board members Johnson Shonhe, Notburga Chifamba, Charles Maponga and Gerald Gore—were charged with criminal abuse of office.
Through their legal counsel Thembinkosi Magwaliba, the six had approached the higher court on review of regional magistrate Ms Estere Chivasa’s decision dismissing their request to have the charges dropped in July of last year.
It was their argument in the lower court that the exceptions taken were on the basis of that factually and legally no offence was disclosed in the charge. The reasoning was that, an extant judgment which they argue was binding existed and has pronounced that Ntapharm was not a public entity.
Its officers, therefore, did not owe a public duty and could not be charged in terms of the charge preferred.
This was extraneously opposed by the prosecution which argued that the six could only raise an exception where the charge fell short in terms of the provision of the law under which they are being charged.
After considering submission by both parties’ legal counsel, Justice Phildah Muzofa found no misdirection on the part of the trial court and threw out the application.
“From the foregoing I find no misdirection to justify an interference with the proceedings before the first respondent (Ms Chivasa),” she said.
The judge said if the six allege that the charge was based on falsehoods and that the prosecution withheld facts known to it invariably means the court had to be favoured with what the applicants allege is the truth.
This can only be done through evidence. The court will have to interrogate the veracity of each party’s evidence before a substantive decision is made.
In their application at the High Court, the six’s contention was that the trial court failed to consider a binding decision granted in NatPharm’s favour that had declared the company to be privately-owned and thus did not have any public duty in relation to the conduct of its officials and employees.
The lower court, they argued, had erred in ordering the trial to proceed when it was apparent that the factual basis on which the charge sheet was based was false. Ms Fortunate Kachidza appeared for the State.
Online Reporter