adminActing judge of the Bulawayo High Court, Justice Meshack Cheda, granted Moyo $1 000 bail pending trial.
The court ordered him to reside at Number 6 Clare Place, Hillside, until the finalisation of his case.
He was also ordered to report to Hillside Police Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
He is restricted to a 120km radius of the Main Post Office and should he want to go a distance of more than that he has to seek permission from police at Hillside Police Station.
Moyo was again ordered to surrender title deeds to his house.
Dismissing his bail application, Bulawayo provincial magistrate Mrs Learnmore Mapiye had ruled that he was not a good candidate for bail as he could abscond.
he noted that investigations against Moyo started way back in 2004 and since then he had been avoiding officers from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission.
Moyo through Mr Sindiso Shepherd Mazibisa, of Cheda and Partners then approached the High Court, arguing that the magistrate misdirected herself in determining that he would abscond when no evidence had been placed before the court that he made an attempt to escape.
“The court aquo erred in refusing the appellant bail when the investigating officer in his evidence alluded clearly that he needed time in which to get witness statements. The State is not ready for trial and to deny the appellant bail while the State is investigating its case is to cut across the appellant’s right to liberty and the assumption that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“The investigating officer indicated that he needs two months to finalise investigations so why should the appellant be in prison awaiting investigation?” argued Mr Mazibisa.
He also queried why his client was being charged with abuse of office when the investigating officer admitted that work had been done on the stretch of the Ilitshe Road.
There was no evidence, he noted, that Moyo made or instructed the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (Zinara) to pay $1,4 million for a non-existent bridge.
He added: “The handling of this case by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission leaves a lot to be desired and brings the name of common law and administration of justice into disrepute.
“Strangely and denting the investigations, the alleged beneficiary of the abuse of the office are known people who have not been arrested. They have not been arrested or investigated. There is an obvious selective application of the law with the alleged culprit being the appellant and what about the accomplices if they exist?”
Mr Mazibisa said the charges were far-fetched and plainly vindictive and calculated to embarrass Moyo or defame him.
Mr Thompson Hove, of the Attorney General’s Office, did not oppose the application but had recommended stringent bail conditions some of which were rejected by the judge.
Moyo (46) has not been formally charged with contravening Section 174 of the Criminal Law
(Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 9:23 (criminal abuse of duty as a public officer).
He will next appear in court on 5 November.
It is the State case that sometime in 2010, Zinara granted Umguza Rural District Council $1,6 million for the reconstruction of 12km stretch of Ilitshe Road and the construction of a 60-metre bridge across Umguza River.
The State is alleging that Moyo unlawfully facilitated the release of funds to Notify Enterprises before it was contracted to carry out the rehabilitation of the road by raising false claims certifying that work had been done.
When the tenders were eventually called for, and Moyo on realising that his scheme was going to be exposed, allegedly abused his power as CEO to cause the awarding of the tender to Notify Enterprises in retrospect.
The contractor was allegedly paid a total of $1 455 650 but no bridge was constructed.
Online Reporter