Mines Minister Mpofu in $2bn diamond fraud

By Everson Mushava    

Controversial Minister of Mines, Obert Mpofu has been implicated in the $2 billion diamond fraud case after lawyers representing diamond dealer Lovemore Kurotwi said the minister must also stand trial.

Kurotwi is being jointly charged with former Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) boss Dominic Mubaiwa over allegations they defrauded the state of $2 billion which was supposed to be invested by a South African company.

They appeared before Justice Musakwa who postponed the matter indefinitely and scrapped reporting conditions.

Mtetwa told the High Court that if the state insisted on charging co-accused Kurotwi then Mpofu not Mubaiwa, should also be brought to court to face the same charges as he endorsed the deal and participated in meetings including travelling to South Africa to meet the investment company.

The state says Kurotwi and Mubaiwa misrepresented government last year that Core Mining and Marange Resources had entered into a joint venture TO comment on this report send your SMS to: 0772470058 which would get $2 billion investment from Benny Steinmeritz Group Resources (BSGR), a South African company.

But BSGR later pulled out after some of the conditions including guarantees on property rights and human rights were not met.  BSGR never invested the money which the state is saying government lost. The state argues that by conniving to misrepresent information, the two prejudiced ZMDC and the government of over $2 billion.

However, the court papers in possession of the Daily News show that Mpofu was aware of the deal and allegedly even briefed government on it. He also granted BSGR officials access to Chiadzwa diamonds lds and was communicating with the company and Canadile on the issue.

This is particularly so taking into account the fact that he (Kurotwi) is now being co-accused with Mubaiwa to whom he was referred by the Minister of Mines and Mining Development.

“If what is alleged Mubaiwa did constitutes a criminal offence, and it is alleged misrepresentations were made to the ministry, why is Obert Mpofu, the minister with whom the first accused (Kurotwi) and his partners dealt with not either a co-accused or a witness?

“This is particularly so taking into account the fact that the minister also travelled to South Africa for a familiarisation tour,” argued Mtetwa in the court papers. Mtetwa said Kurotwi could not have connived with Mubaiwa to fleece the state because Mubaiwa always acted on the instructions of the minister. The minister would communicate the ministry’s position to Mubaiwa for execution.

“His and his partners’ representations were with the minister and if what he did constitutes a criminal offence, it is the minister who ought to be his co-accused,” said Mtetwa, adding that the ZMDC decisions could not have been reached as a result of Mubaiwa’s actions alone, but with the consent of the minister.

Mpofu, Mtetwa said, was the one to testify on all issues of alleged misrepresentations emanating from their meetings with Kurotwi arguing that from the list of witnesses, there can be no doubt that the state sought to rely on hearsay evidence from persons who were not even at ZMDC at the relevant time.

“From the list of witnesses, it is quite clear that Minister Mpofu’s name is missing. It would be grossly prejudicial to Kurotwi to have him tried on the basis of alleged misrepresentations to a person who does not testify,” Mtetwa said. Mtetwa said Kurotwi would not entertain the roping in of suspects into state witnesses.

“What is at issue is the attempt to bring new and fresh facts through the back disguised as amendments when these are clearly prejudicial substitutions. Such attempts, as they are, on issues raised by the defence, completely undermine the accused’s defence as they will now have to proceed with new costly procedures which would probably require further pre-trial applications.

“If the state wishes to bring fresh ‘facts’, it must do so afresh,” said Mtetwa.

Mtetwa said it was also prejudicial to Kurotwi to be indicted on ‘facts’ that did not allege actual prejudice only to face a charge in the sum of $2 billion without showing how that money was arrived at.

“As the document on which the state is relying remains the same, and the only letter in which $2 billion is mentioned clearly refers to ‘an investment worth up to $2 billion’, the amendment sought should be accompanied with a very clear explanation as to how the actual prejudice of $2 billion occurred,” said Mtetwa.

Representing Mubaiwa, Uriri also said the decision to enter into a joint venture agreement was made at a very high level and was communicated to the Mpofu who advised that there was a cabinet approval for the contact and as such, the misrepresentation also involves the minister. Daily News