Mangoma seeks discharge

discharge at the close of the State case arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against him.
He is accused of authorising the purchase of diesel from NOOA Petroleum of South Africa without going to tender.
Mangoma, who is being represented by Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, submitted that the evidence led by the State fell short of what is required to place him on his defence.
“If we were to look at the evidence of each State witness individually, my Lord you will be aware that there were so many State cases because each witness came with his own version of (the) State case which was variably different from preceding State witnesses.
“In this case the State has so dismally failed to make out a case against accused that all criteria are met for discharge,” she submitted.
She said the State had failed to show that the Minister had bought fuel for no other reason but to favour NOOA Petroleum.
Ms Mtetwa said to prove that, the State should have led evidence to show that during the time in question there was no fuel crisis in the country.
“But we know that each and every witness has confirmed that there was a fuel crisis in the country. The State summary itself accepts that there was an acute shortage of diesel in the country,” she further submitted.
She said once the State agrees that the issue of intention falls away as the intention was to avert a crisis as opposed to merely favouring NOOA.
She said the State ought to lead evidence showing that there was plenty fuel in the country and the approved companies had it at competitive prices but the Minister disregarded this and favoured NOOA. Ms Mtetwa said the court should discharge Mangoma on the basis that he had no intention of committing a crime.
“It cannot be possibly be contrary to Minister’s duty to try and avert a crisis by procuring fuel from an entity that had fuel at the time when he was not given options,” she said.
Ms Mtetwa said the charge sheet as it currently stands does not disclose any offence.
“There is nothing to show that it was unlawful to purchase from NOOA, all the State says is accused showed favour. One can only favour where there is a party or other parties in exactly the same position as the favoured entity. The question that comes to mind is, NOOA was favoured against whom? NOOA was clearly favoured in a vacuum,” she submitted.
She further submitted that all State witnesses had failed to prove that Petro Trade was indeed a procuring entity. Ms Mtetwa said it would be a travesty of justice to put the Minister on defence while the ministry’s secretary Mr Justin Mupamhanga was walking free. She said the witnesses had showed four different lists of approved companies and asked which one the Minister was going to use if he was put on defence adding that the court was not a lottery where participants pick numbers to win. Ms Mtetwa said given the circumstances no reasonable court acting properly can properly convict Mangoma.
Justice Chinembiri Bhunu deferred the matter to today for the State to respond to the application.