admin
Rushwaya pleaded not guilty to all nine counts of corruptly concealing a transaction from a principal when she appeared before regional magistrate Ms Esthere Chivasa.
Through her lawyers, Mr Jonathan Samukange and Mr Tafadzwa Hungwe of Venturas and Samukange, Rushwaya argued that the facts alleged by the State in all the counts do not disclose any offence.
“The State in its charges is merely alleging that the accused did not disclose the so called transactions to her principle and believes such is a criminal offence,” said Mr Samukange.
“With all due respect, the State is misfiring and has completely failed to understand and comprehend the nature of the alleged offence in issue. The further averment that Zifa had allegedly not authorised such trips does not make the alleged conduct criminal either.
“Instead, it is a further indication of a labour issue that has been maliciously sneaked into these criminal courts.”
He added: “ Without further wasting this Court’s time the facts alleged by the State in its charge sheet do not disclose of an offence known at law or cognisable by the court as envisaged in terms of section 180(1) of the criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.
“At most the facts alleged by the State constitute a basis for a charge of misconduct against the accused within the Zifa structures.
“It is an in-house issue which (if at all was an issue) was never made an issue at the relevant times so many years ago by Zifa or any such other person. It is an issue which these courts have nothing to do with.”
Mr Samukange further argued that the State was silent on the issue of the complainant.
Zifa, he said, never made any complaint in relation to the case.
In opposing the application prosecutor Mr Oliver Marwa and Sidom Chinzete said the State’s facts were clearly disclosing an offence.
Mr Chinzete argued that the State was relying on Rushwaya’s failure to disclose the nature of transaction to his principal and failure to disclose the source of funding.
“Your Worship, this application is misplaced for the defence sought to rely on a fact which is not a requirement at law.
“The State is relying on accused’s failure to disclose the nature of transaction to her principal, Zifa and failure to disclose the source of funding. Once the two are proved hence presumption is that the accused did so for a consideration,” he said.
Mr Chinzete castigated the defence for alleging that there was no complainant in the matter. “It is highly misleading for the defence to say that Zifa did not complain because Zifa, through its official representative, made a formal complaint through the anti-corruption commission and witnesses are there to support that assertion,” he said.
“The wording of the legislature was correctly followed and well supported by the facts which state that the accused in her capacity as CEO of Zifa arranged and facilitated international matches,” Mr Chinzete said.
Online Reporter