Part 2, From Fuel Abuse to Land Deals, What the Tribunal Found in Rusape

By Shingirai Vambe

The investigation details 33 counts of misconduct, ranging from irregular financial decisions to abuse of authority, some of which the tribunal noted may also constitute criminal offences under Zimbabwean law. Despite these findings and a previous suspension and dismissal in 2020, with the full knowledge of the Ministry of Local Government, Solomon Gabaza later returned to office under a new council, raising fresh questions about accountability and governance within the local authority.

This follow-up article unpacks the tribunal’s findings chapter by chapter, focusing on how internal controls at Rusape Town Council allegedly collapsed, how key decisions were made, and why recommendations contained in the reports were ultimately ignored. It also examines the implications of reinstating an official found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, at a time when public confidence in local government remains fragile.

Despite the gravity of the findings, many of which border on criminality, the reports reveal how Gabaza repeatedly evaded accountability, culminating in his controversial return to work under a new council, a development that has raised serious governance and oversight questions.

According to the determination, Gabaza wilfully absented himself from the disciplinary hearing, despite being properly notified. The tribunal ruled that by failing to attend without reasonable cause, he waived his right to be heard, allowing proceedings to continue in his absence.

Over the course of the hearing, 13 witnesses testified against him. Their evidence went unchallenged, their documents uncontested. The disciplinary authority subsequently assessed the evidence against Gabaza’s written defence and his limited cross-examination of the first witness.

What followed was a damning, count-by-count dismantling of his leadership.

One of the most serious findings relates to rampant fuel abuse at Rusape Town Council, which investigators concluded was enabled, and in some cases driven, by Gabaza himself.

Witnesses including the council accountant, internal auditor, stores clerk and councillors described a collapsed fuel control system, where procedures were routinely ignored. Fuel requisitions were bypassed, acknowledgements not signed, and fuel collected without supervision.

More alarmingly, non-council employees, security personnel described as associates of Gabaza. According to the report, over 3 260 litres of council fuel was consumed in just six weeks.

Evidence showed that senior officials, including the procurement manager, were drawing fuel far in excess of their allocations, sometimes hundreds of litres per month, while signing for fuel on behalf of outsiders.

The tribunal found that Gabaza could not plausibly claim ignorance. As accounting officer, he was legally obligated to supervise all council employees and safeguard council resources.

“The rot,” the ruling concluded, “was flowing from the head.”

The reports further expose a pattern of irregular recruitment, where Gabaza bypassed council policy and ministerial approvals to appoint unqualified individuals into critical positions.

In one instance, permission was granted by the Ministry of Local Government to recruit four accounting clerks. Instead, Gabaza unilaterally instructed that general clerks be recruited, three of whom had no accounting background whatsoever. They were later dumped into other departments, leaving the treasury understaffed.

Key witnesses testified that Gabaza deliberately altered job advertisements without authority, misleading both council officials and the ministry. The tribunal rejected his claim that council later “ratified” the appointments, noting that Councillors rely entirely on information supplied by the Town Secretary.

“He abused his power,” the ruling stated, adding that council was likely misled.

The tribunal also found that Gabaza irregularly recruited a procurement manager who did not meet mandatory professional requirements, despite personally chairing the interview panel.

In yet another breach, the tribunal found that some employees were hired without interviews at all, directly contradicting recruitment policy. Files presented showed no interview minutes, and one employee testified she was never interviewed.

Contracts signed by Gabaza himself placed responsibility squarely at his doorstep.

The investigation details how unqualified staff were transferred into sensitive treasury positions, despite objections from supervisors. One employee, lacking any accounting qualifications, was repeatedly protected and redeployed by Gabaza, even after documented performance failures.

The tribunal concluded that these decisions were not made in council’s interests, but were instead indicative of favouritism and possible ulterior motives.

At the same time, council houses were being allocated to non-employees, many of them allegedly state officials, without lease agreements and without paying rent. Some occupants lived rent-free for years, depriving council of revenue while ordinary council employees rented private accommodation.

The tribunal found that Gabaza personally took over allocation powers, bypassing transparency and accountability.

His failure to safeguard council property, the ruling concluded, amounted to abuse of office under the Urban Councils Act.

Perhaps the most explosive findings relate to illegal land allocations.

Despite a clear ministerial moratorium on land sales, Gabaza approved and signed off on the allocation of residential stands at multiple sites, including Gopal Infill and Silver Bow.

Some of the stands were sold to individuals who could not afford deposits, while others were located directly under high-voltage power lines, in violation of public safety regulations. Rectifying the problem would cost more than the total value of the stands sold.

The tribunal found that Gabaza knowingly defied ministerial authority, exposed residents to danger, and financially prejudiced the council.

The determination further reveals that Gabaza blocked a major infrastructure partnership with a reputable developer, despite strong support from technical departments. He later refused to explain his decision, leading investigators to conclude that the move was driven by ulterior motives rather than council interests.

In another case, he approved refuse collection contracts involving a sitting Councillor, without the legally required written declaration of interest, in clear violation of the Urban Councils Act.

Across multiple counts, the disciplinary authority repeatedly rejected Gabaza’s defence that responsibility lay elsewhere.

As accounting officer, head of procurement, and chief executive, the tribunal held that ultimate responsibility rested with him.

The findings paint a picture of a local authority captured by one individual, where rules were bent, resources looted, land unlawfully sold, and institutions hollowed out, all while oversight mechanisms failed.

That Gabaza was later returned to office by a new council, despite these findings, raises urgent questions about governance, accountability, and the role of the Ministry of Local Government in enforcing its own directives.

In our next edition, will give a detailed account of initiated allowance backpay at Rusape Town Council, from January 2012-March 2016 and 2023, with a total amount of USD $724.106.78

About The Author