adminremaining charge of abusing authority by canceling a tender for the supply of electricity equipment.
Minister Mangoma was also cleared recently of corruptly authorising the procurement of 5 million litres of diesel from a South African firm, NOOA.
Minister Mangoma was arrested for cancelling the procurement tender for the supply of prepayment revenue management system, meters and allied equipment to the prejudice of some eight aspiring suppliers who participated in the tender process.
He was arrested on March 25 this year, two weeks after he had been arrested again on the other charge of corruptly authorising the purchase of 5 million litres of diesel from NOOA Petroleum without going to tender.
The High Court has, however, acquitted the minister of the charges related to the fuel deal for lack of incriminating evidence.
Yesterday the trial on the cancellation of power equipment tender failed to take off after chief law officer Mr Chris Mutangadura withdrew the charges before plea.
Mr Mutangadura told the court that the previous acquittal of the same minister on the fuel allegations had a bearing on the current matter and that withdrawal was the best option.
“The State wishes to withdraw charges in this matter. The basis upon which we prepared the charge was substantially similar to the facts in the previous charge.
“In the light of the judgment by Justice Bhunu (Chinembiri) we are hamstrung. The only option available for the prosecution is to withdraw the charges,” said Mr Mutangadura.
Defence lawyer Mrs Beatrice Mtetwa accepted the withdrawal.
Justice Tendai Uchena was left with no option but to allow the withdrawal.
“We have heard the State’s application and the withdrawal has been welcomed by the defence.
“Therefore, charges are accordingly withdrawn before plea,” ruled Justice Uchena.
On his way out of the High Court, Minister Mangoma reiterated that the charges against him were trumped up as a political strategy to prevent him from performing to expectation.
Minister Mangoma appealed to the State to give him some space and concentrate on important development issues.
“As I once said, this was part of the persecution of MDC ministers by Zanu-PF.
“Clearly, it was designed to intimidate them so that they do not perform well to match some non-performing Zanu-PF ministers.
“I hope they will now leave me alone for a while so that I concentrate on solving important issues for the development of the country,” said Minister Mangoma.
The State alleged that sometime in May last year, the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company, a subsidiary of Zesa Holdings, invited tenders for the supply and delivery of a prepayment meters and associated equipment.
The closing date was June 29, 2010 with Denallare Technologies, Palo Holdings (SA), Solahart Zimbabwe, Kithra Enterprises, Merlin Gerlin (SA), GEC Zimbabwe, Palace Power Systems (SA), Landis and Gyr (SA), and Cerany Investments taking part.
On July 19, after adjudication, ZETDC sent the tender documents to the State Procurement Board for it to award its recommended bidder who in this case was Landis and Gyr.
It is alleged that when the board delayed in announcing the successful bid, then Zesa chief executive Engineer Ben Rafemoyo approached the Permanent Secretary for Energy, Mr Justin Mupamhanga, over the matter.
Mr Mupamhanga wrote to State Procurement Board chairman, Mr Charles Kuwaza, asking them to announce the winner to expedite implementation of the project in the public interest.
Minister Mangoma, on August 20 last year, allegedly wrote to Zesa board chairman, Dr Noah Madziva, saying that no further action should be taken on the tender.
Zanu-PF Politburo member, Professor Jonathan Moyo, yesterday said the critical issue was that officers from the Attorney General’s Office had handled the matter in terms of the rule of law in accordance with the Constitution.
He said this meant that the decision to free Minister Mangoma was not influenced and the AG’s Office was not controlled by anyone.
Prof Moyo said given that Minister Mangoma was not put to his defense in the NOOA deal, it was unnecessary for the prosecution to continue with the case.
He said the decision on the Zesa case was going to be influenced by the first case.
“It would have been foolhardy for the AG’s Office to press ahead with a case that had precedence and had a foregone conclusion.
“The AG should be commended for taking this decision of not plundering tax payers’ money pursuing this case.
“The Attorney General’s Office is independent and it conducted itself professionally as expected of the job,” he said.
Online Reporter