Madondo wants case referred to Supreme Court

Madondo is facing fraud charges involving the administration of two residential stands and shares belonging to the late national hero and his late business partner also claims that he was wrongfully charged.
Madondo had his application for referral to the Supreme Court dismissed by regional magistrate Mr Hosea Mujaya.
He has now approached the superior court in a bid to overturn the lower court’s decision.
In his constitutional application, Madondo has cited the magistrate and the Attorney General as respondents.
Madondo argues that the refusal by Mr Mujaya to refer the constitutional issues he raised to the Supreme Court was wrongful and a breach of his right to approach the highest court in the land.
“I naturally took the view that the charges involved did not set out any offence. My position was two-fold.
“Firstly, it was that they do not constitute an offence in that even if the allegations are proven, no offence is carried out by those allegations.
“Secondly there was no demonstrable proof that all allegations were of no moment and that I had conducted myself above the strict standards of honour required of my calling,” he said.
Madondo’s application is predicated  on  provisions of Section 24 (1)  of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which gives a litigant a right to bring such an application if he or she feels that the declaration of rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him or her.
At the Supreme Court, Madondo is seeking a permanent stay of criminal proceedings.
He says the decision to prosecute him under circumstances where the State cannot set out the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he committed an offence was a breach of his constitutional rights.
He also alleges that the prosecutor in the matter goes beyond the legitimate discharge of prosecutorial function and the strict standard of honour set out in the constitution.
“I believe that the position of the law is clear.
If the position is ignored then anyone ignoring it would have acted with culpable ignorance as contemplated under Section 13(5) (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,” he submitted.
The State alleges that when Mapurisa died in 1990, his son Brian was appointed heir to the estate.
Dauramanzi died 14 years later in 2004 and his wife Cecilia prepared her initial inventory whereby she declared Chivhu Holdings (Pvt) Ltd in terms of the Administration of Estates Act before handing it over to Madondo for processing.
On May 2, 2006, Madondo made a final inventory and misrepresented in his declaration that stand numbers 322 and 324 belonged to Dauramanzi when in actual fact the two immovable properties belonged to the company, according to the title deeds.
Madondo, the State says, took the properties of Chivhu Holdings and declared them as Dauramanzi’s personal assets.
Due to the misrepresentation, the Master of High Court confirmed the properties as Dauramanzi’s private assets.
Sometime in August last year, after the account of the estate of Mapurisa was confirmed by the High Court, his son Brian inherited the 74,9 percent shares, which he held.
On July 15 this year, the State says, Madondo wrote to Brian, Dauramanzi’s wife, the Master of High Court and Fremius Executor Services circulating a false statement indicating that Dauramanzi held 100 percent shares in the company.