Rusape File High Court Appeal Over US$45K Ruling

…Rate payers’ money squandered…

By Shingirai Vambe

The High Court has become the latest battleground in the ongoing saga between Rusape Town Council and six former Councillors. The council has filed an appeal against the ruling of the Rusape Magistrate Court, which awarded the former Councillors US$45,000 in compensation for malicious arrest and prosecution.

The case began when the Councillors, Lyton Sithole, Peter Kwesha, Munyaradzi Preference Chigwede, Ndabanengi Mataga, Joseph Nyamupera, and Elizabeth Chidza, were arrested by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) in 2021 on charges of criminal abuse of office. The allegations stemmed from their alleged handpicking of two law firms to handle a labor dispute involving the then-suspended town secretary, Solomon Gabaza.

However, the Councillors were acquitted of the allegations after a full trial. Magistrate Rufaro Mangwiro ruled that the council had initiated the arrest and prosecution of the Councillors without reasonable suspicion, and that the Councillors were entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution.

The council’s decision to appeal the ruling has sparked debate about accountability and transparency in local government. The case highlights the need for council officials to be held accountable for their actions and for the use of taxpayer money to be transparent and justifiable.

Contacted for a comment, Chairman, lovemore Chifomboti declined to comment on the matter despite his council playing oversight on the ills of the local authority and professed ignorance. He told this publication that he was not sure why an appeal was filed.

Close source told the Post on Sunday that, legal representatives for the local authority advised council not to continue with the case, as it will further milk their already strained confers with little to none of the desired change to the case.

The High Court appeal will determine whether the Rusape Magistrate Court’s ruling was justified and whether the Councillors are entitled to compensation for malicious prosecution. The outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for the council and the former Councillors, as well as for the broader issue of accountability in local government.

As the case unfolds, questions are being raised about the council’s motives for appealing the ruling. Are they trying to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, or do they genuinely believe that the magistrate’s ruling was flawed? The answer to these questions will be crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal and the future of local governance in Rusape.

The case has also raised concerns about the use of rate-payers’ money to fund council officials’ personal battles. The council’s decision to appeal the ruling will likely incur significant costs, which will be borne by the rate-payers’. This has sparked debate about the need for greater transparency and accountability in local government spending.

The High Court appeal will be a test of the council’s commitment to accountability and transparency. Will they be held accountable for their actions, or will they be able to avoid responsibility? The outcome of the appeal will have significant implications for the future of local governance in Rusape and beyond.

Another Councillor, on condition of anonymity said, this is Gabaza’s case, he always want to play a joker and clean his name by exposing other officers. “We are very aware of his pending case with ZACC, he was illegally reinstated, ZACC and NPA bowed down to the Local Board’s decision, knowing very well he has pending cases to answer before the Courts.

A heated debate over the reinstatement of Solomon Gabaza, the Town Secretary of Rusape, despite pending charges of abuse of office, council funds, and insubordination. The resident expressed confusion over the Local Government Board’s decision to reinstate Gabaza, given the court’s earlier ruling that the Councillors who dismissed him did so in accordance with laid-down procedures.

The resident’s concerns stem from the fact that the Councillors were acquitted of all allegations after a full trial, with the court finding that they had acted in accordance with their duties. This raises questions about who erred in the dismissal and reinstatement of Gabaza. Was it the Councillors who effected the dismissal, or was it the local government authorities who reinstated him?

The resident’s comments highlight the need for clarity and consistency in the application of the law. If the courts have absolved the Councillors of any wrongdoing, why was Gabaza reinstated? The resident’s plea for answers has sparked a lively discussion, with many calling for greater transparency and accountability in local government.

The case has raised questions about the role of the Local Government Board and the National Prosecuting Authority in ensuring that justice is served. Why did they ignore the pending charges against Gabaza, and what implications does this have for the residents of Rusape?

As the case makes its way through the High Court, one thing is certain, the outcome will have far-reaching consequences for the council, the former Councillors, and the residents of Rusape. Will justice be served, or will the council’s appeal succeed in overturning the magistrate’s ruling? Only time will tell.