‘Arrest First, Investigate Later’ NetOne CEO Case Highlights Systemic Failures at ZACC

Senior Post Reporter

The long-criticised culture of “arresting to investigate”, a practice that has haunted Zimbabwe’s justice and security institutions for decades, has once again come under sharp public scrutiny. This time, the controversy was reignited by the case of NetOne chief executive Raphael Mushanawani, whose dramatic arrest and equally swift exoneration have exposed deep institutional weaknesses within the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) and the broader security apparatus.

For months, legal experts, analysts and even senior government officials have warned that ZACC lacks the technical capacity required to investigate complex modern crimes. The Post On Sunday previously reported concerns that the commission requires a complete overhaul, not just in staffing, but in mandate, competency and investigative approach. The Mushanawani saga has now become a textbook example of what critics describe as “malicious arrests” driven by misunderstanding, internal politics or external influence rather than evidence.

When Mushanawani was first taken in, the public was told he had irregularly commissioned an upgrade of NetOne’s information systems without board approval, a claim that appeared serious on paper. Yet months later, after court proceedings and intense legal scrutiny, the entire case collapsed. On Thursday, Harare magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa removed him from remand, ruling unequivocally that there was no evidence linking him to any crime.

To many observers, the ruling confirmed what Mushanawani’s legal team had argued from the very beginning, he should never have been arrested.

According to his lawyer, Admire Rubaya, the accusations were built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how information technology systems operate. In court, Rubaya was blunt, “Accused is at a loss as to why he finds himself arrested and prosecuted over an issue which exposes ZACC officers’ lack of understanding of IT systems.”

The case centred on NetOne’s outdated SAGE 1000 system, which SAGE South Africa had formally declared to be at “end-of-sale” stage, meaning support and maintenance would cease after December 31, 2024. Rubaya explained that upgrading to the SAGE L200 platform was not a rogue decision, but a technical imperative aligned with vendor guidance and board resolutions.

“Contrary to the state’s claims, the upgrading of the SAGE ERP 1000 to SAGE L200 was imperative,” he said, emphasising that the board had fully endorsed this transition. He further pointed out that the upgrade appeared in NetOne’s 2025 Strategic Plan, a document reviewed and approved by the same board whose authority Mushanawani was accused of defying.

The defence also dismantled the prosecution’s central narrative that Mushanawani had worked “clandestinely” with Lunartech Solutions while a separate contract with Farevic Systems was underway. Rubaya clarified that the Farevic contract related to the SAP ERP system, an entirely different platform from SAGE 1000 or SAGE L200. Suggesting the two systems were interchangeable, he argued, was evidence of poor investigative work and a lack of basic ICT literacy.

As hearings progressed, deeper political intrigue emerged. Mushanawani’s lawyers wrote to ZACC accusing unnamed actors of engineering the arrest as part of “a well-orchestrated ploy” to push him out of NetOne.

“There are certain individuals who are targeting his post who have approached you (ZACC) on the basis of name-dropping very powerful individuals, yet there is no involvement of any such political figures,” the lawyers said.

In their view, the allegations were not only baseless, but rooted in opportunism and internal power struggles. “The grand plan,” they argued, “is for these instigators to take over NetOne.”

When Magistrate Gofa finally ruled that there was no evidence to sustain the charges, the judgment was widely read as a vindication not only of Mushanawani, but of long-standing calls for the professionalisation and upgrading of Zimbabwe’s investigative institutions.

Once again, the spotlight turns to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, an institution meant to shield the nation from graft, yet repeatedly criticised for bungling cases, mishandling evidence, and misunderstanding corporate processes. Critics say the Mushanawani case should serve as a moment of reckoning: proof that without skilled investigators, technical specialists, and strict adherence to due process, the commission risks becoming a tool for harassment rather than justice.

With the case now closed, the questions remain, how many other arrests have been made on similarly shaky grounds? And how long can Zimbabwe tolerate investigative practices that prioritise spectacle over substance?