Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE original tender document at the centre of the US$7 million fraud allegations against business partners Mike Chimombe and Moses Mpofu is an official Government record and can legally be produced in criminal proceedings, the High Court has ruled.
The document pertains to the tender for the goats in the Presidential Goats Pass-On Scheme, which was awarded to Blackdeck Livestock and Poultry Farming.
The prosecution’s bid to introduce the tender document mid-trial last month sparked fierce legal debate, with both sides clashing over whether the timing in the middle of the trial upheld principles of fairness and due process.
This dispute had to be resolved before the cross-examination of the fifth State witness could proceed.
Justice Pisirayi Kwenda, presiding over the case, emphasised the legal basis for producing such documents, citing Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and said that the tender document had been mentioned several times in the original charges and during the trial and the fifth prosecution witness was the relevant person to produce the detailed evidence.
“Any original document in the custody of or under the control of the official of the State, by virtue of his office, may be produced in any criminal proceedings before any courts, unless the minister certifies that it is undesirable that such original document should be so produced,” he stated.
The judge acknowledged that the fifth prosecution witness, identified as a procurement officer, confirmed her role in preparing tender advertisements, receiving and processing bidding documents, and safeguarding them.
“By mere reading of Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, there would be a witness who can properly produce this document in compliance with the cited section.”
Rejecting the defence’s argument that the document had not been disclosed earlier as required by law, Justice Kwenda noted that it was explicitly mentioned in the charge sheet, state case summaries, and witness testimonies.
He stressed that Chimombe and Mpofu were fully aware of the document’s relevance to the trial.
“Having considered the submissions, I come to the conclusion that this document can be produced at this stage,” he ruled, adding, “The accused were aware that this trial was concerned with the document, and they actually distanced themselves from it.”
Advocate Tapson Dzvetero, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, Advocate Garikai Sithole, and Arshiel Mugiya, representing the defence, opposed having the document brought before the court.
Adv Dzvetero argued that the defence had previously requested the document before the trial commenced, but the prosecution either ignored or declined to produce it.
“Its sudden appearance during proceedings would unfairly prejudice Mpofu,” he asserted.
Prof Madhuku reinforced this position, invoking established legal principles to challenge the prosecution’s move, warning against altering the trial’s procedural framework midway.
Adv Sithole supported these objections by referencing case law, demanding a clear legal justification for the prosecution’s late submission.
Prosecutor Whisper Mabhaudhi defended the timing, asserting that the document’s examination was critical to the court’s ability to deliver a just verdict.
The tender document, allegedly submitted to the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, and Rural Development, is described as a cornerstone of the scheme involving the supply of 632 001 goats under a US$87,7 million project.
