Furious Kamambo and co-accused take Prosecutor General to ConCourt

Former Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) executives Felton Kamambo, Brighton Malandule, Philemon Machana, Stanley Chapeta and Joseph Mamutse who are facing fraud charges have decided to take the Prosecutor General to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) citing the violation of their rights and harassment.

The five are alleged to have written letters on Zifa letterheads purporting to be executive committee members yet they were on suspension.

Represented by Admire Rubaya, the five have denied the allegations and the trial has stalled and they now want the matter referred to the apex court as they believe their constitutional rights are being violated by the prosecution.

This is after the State refused to withdraw fraud charges against them despite the complainant, the Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC), writing to the prosecution indicating that they were no longer interested in the matter.

“The accused persons are facing allegations arising from a criminal complaint lodged by SRC, and the trial has commenced before you. Midway, the SRC has effectively informed the prosecutor general that they are withdrawing the charges against the accused.

“On June 19, 2023 the then Acting Prosecutor General of the Republic received a letter from the Chairman of the SRC to the effect that it was no longer the complainant in the matter.

“It therefore means that the State was aware that the complainant had withdrawn itself from the case. Effectively, the complainant was withdrawing the criminal complaint against the accused.

It is their argument that Zimbabwe was restored back to international football on the basis of the withdrawal cited by the SRC and that the conduct of the State works against the agreement with the world football governing body FIFA.

“The withdrawal letter was used as one of the basis to uplift the ban on ZIFA which for all intents and purposes was welcome development.

“In the face of that withdrawal, itself a clear indication by the complainant that the complainant`s officials did not wish to testify, and taking into account the fact that no trial could proceed without their evidence all the circumstances considered, it is surprising to learn that the State was still bent on proceeding with the trial,” he submitted.

The five believe the State is abusing the court process and are seeking to have the Constitutional Court decide if the decision by the prosecution does not amount to harassment.

“The process the State wants to undertake is an abuse of the court process. The decision of the prosecution is moral defilement and unlawful deprivation of accused personal liberty. It is their belief that the process is unconstitutional,” he added.

“The confusion afflicting the state is common but simple. It is a complainant who comes up with a complaint. It is the state that comes up with a charge. The charge is, however, founded upon the complaint. Without the complaint a charge is invalid.

“Whilst the state has the prerogative to charge and cannot be directed by anyone in doing so, it does not have the right to proceed when it has lost both the complaint and its sole witness.”