Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
IF Mike Chimombe and Moses Mpofu had been entertaining hopes that they could find some relief, in challenging their lengthy jail sentences, then those thoughts were misplaced.
The legal road, in search of relief, has narrowed dramatically for the two businessmen.
Mpofu remains with an effective 15-year prison sentence after the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence.
Chimombe remains with an effective 12-year prison sentence after the dismissal of his corresponding application.
According to legal experts, the judgment is largely procedural rather The Supreme Court effectively brought to an end their bid to challenge the lengthy prison terms imposed after their conviction in the US$7,7 million Presidential Goat Pass-on Scheme fraud.
In a landmark judgment delivered by Justice of Appeal George Chiweshe, with Justices of Appeal Susan Mavangira and Hlekani Mwayera concurring, the country’s highest appellate court ruled that neither Mpofu nor Chimombe has any prospects of successfully appealing against their sentences.
Their applications for leave to appeal on sentence were dismissed in their entirety.
The ruling means Mpofu remains sentenced to an effective 15 years’ imprisonment, while Chimombe continues to face an effective 12-year prison term, unless any future appeal on the limited questions of law succeeds in overturning their convictions.
Justice Chiweshe was unequivocal that the High Court had properly exercised its sentencing discretion.
The judgment marks a decisive moment in one of Zimbabwe’s highest-profile corruption prosecutions, arising from the Presidential Goat Pass-on Scheme, a national programme intended to improve rural livelihoods through the distribution of hundreds of thousands of goats to vulnerable households.
The Supreme Court was emphatic that the High Court had committed no error in imposing lengthy custodial sentences. Justice Chiweshe found that the offences involved aggravating circumstances of the highest order.
The fraud targeted public funds earmarked for poverty alleviation, involved millions of United States dollars, and was executed through deliberate misrepresentations about the company’s legal status, tax compliance and capacity to supply livestock.
“This was a fraud involving public funds meant to alleviate poverty across the country.
“The amounts involved ran into millions of United States dollars or equivalent local currency. The actual prejudice to the fiscus was thus enormous,” said the judge.
Rejecting arguments that the prison terms were excessive, the court held that the sentences were fully consistent with Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines) Regulations, 2023, which prescribe severe punishment for fraud involving public resources.
It further held that the trial judge had properly exercised judicial discretion and that there was no basis for appellate interference.
For Mpofu, the court also rejected complaints over the order requiring restitution in United States dollars, finding no reasonable prospects of success on that issue.
“The aggravating features clearly outweighed the mitigatory factors. Under the circumstances, the court a quo cannot be faulted in determining that a custodial sentence was called for.
“The sentence imposed was consistent with the sentencing guidelines,” Justice Chiweshe said.
Although the Supreme Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal on factual issues and sentence, it ruled that each applicant remains entitled to pursue a narrow appeal on specific questions of law.
Mpofu may appeal, without seeking leave, on three legal grounds concerning the interpretation of the fraud charge and corporate liability.
However, this is likely to be academic and unlikely to overturn the sentence imposed
Chimombe similarly retains the right to appeal, without leave, on a single legal issue relating to whether the High Court correctly determined that he possessed the criminal intent necessary for a conviction.
However, the court stressed that these legal questions arise by operation of law and do not amount to permission to reopen factual findings made during the lengthy trial.
Mathew Masinge