Mupfumira claims her arrest was persecution for supporting Mnangagwa

Former Public Service Minister Prisca Mupfumira has claimed that she was being persecuted by “anti-government forces” for supporting President Emmerson Mnangagwa when she was arrested on corruption allegations involving US$95 million.

In a letter dated February 5, penned by her lawyer, Admire Rubaya, directed to Prosecutor General Loice Matanda-Moyo, Mupfumira distanced herself from the allegations which she described as “malicious, frivolous and vexatious”.

The Zanu-PF Mashonaland West senator says her arrest was sensationalised and reinforced by a false allegation that she siphoned US$95 million from the ministry, a huge figure which could collapse any ministry.

Mupfumira said this narrative was weaponized by “anti-government forces, unfairly tarnishing both her and the democratically elected Zanu-PF government.”

Her trial is set to restart under a new judicial officer following the elevation of the then chief magistrate Munamato Mutevedzi to become a judge.

She was arrested together with the then permanent secretary in the Ministry Ngoni Masoka.

Mupfumira argued that her prosecution then and the imminent prosecution was wrong as there is nothing to link her to the alleged corruption.

She is facing allegations of abuse of duty as a public officer and corruptly concealing a transaction involving a US$90 000 loan application from NSSA for the purchase of a supposed ministerial vehicle.

The former cabinet Minister is accused of allegedly failing to reveal the loan transaction to her principal, the office of the President and Cabinet for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser as a vehicle for condition of service.

In the letter, Mupfumira distanced herself from the allegations and attached documents which she says show that she was not the author of a letter to NSSA neither did she initiate or order anyone to request the loan.

She also argued that vehicle in question was a government car registered with the CMED (Pvt) Ltd which shows that there was nothing for her benefit.

“On the 26th of June 2015 the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare requested an advance of US$90,000.00 from NSSA.

“It is critical to note that the letter does not indicate that the request for an advance loan was consequent to an alleged instruction from Honourable Senator Prisca Mupfumira. Interestingly again the letter was neither served nor copied to our client.

“Mr. Ngoni Masoka has not confirmed anywhere that he received the alleged instruction to initiate this process in issue from our client. It is thus very disturbing as to how the State (NPA) will then seek to prove the existence of the alleged verbal instruction in the circumstances.”

Mupfumira also stated that Cabinet was made aware of the loan contrary to the claim that the office was in the dark.

“On the 1st of July 2015, the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Public Service sought for Cabinet Authority to purchase an official vehicle for the Minister of Public Service using funds which were to be borrowed from NSSA. The letter was addressed to the Chief Secretary to the President and Cabinet.

“Consequent to that request for Cabinet authority, the Secretary for Public Service was given the much-needed authority to utilise the loan which had been availed by NSSA with an undertaking that the money was to be reimbursed to NSSA once Treasury had allocated the required funding,” the letter reads.

Her lawyer argues that since the Office of the President and Cabinet knew of the loan, it is unfair to prosecute her.

“Once the Office of the President and Cabinet gave the greenlight, it would be unjust and unfair for anyone including the State (NPA) to prosecute our client in the face of the authority from the appointing authority that funds from NSSA could be accepted and used to purchase a motor vehicle for the use by the Minister of Public Service.”

“This then begs the question, once the Office of the President and Cabinet gave the green light who could say NO! In the same vein, who can possibly question the authority granted by the Office of the President and Cabinet, an office which takes instructions directly from the First Citizen of the Republic on government issues,” Rubaya wrote.

Mupfumira was also accused of instructing the finance director in the Ministry to facilitate the payment of air tickets for her aides to attend her daughter’s wedding in South Africa and facilitating the payment of accommodation and transport, which prejudiced the ministry of US$10 215 and ZAR113 539.

She described the allegations as “malicious, frivolous and vexatious” aimed at soiling her and the ruling government’s reputation and attached documents to show that the payments were made from private funds.

It is her further argument that she, herself, used her own money and that whoever benefitted from the funds used her name for their benefit and should face the music.

“The accommodation fees were paid from private monies. This information is easily verifiable through an extra territorial investigation at the hotels in question together with the airlines in issue.”

She said there was no reason to have people from her ministry at the wedding which was attended by several high profile figures including Oppah Muchinguri Kashiri, her husband Mr Kashiri, Josiah Hungwe, Ignatius Chiminya Chombo, Ambassador Professor Charity Manyeruke, and Eunice Sandi Moyo.

“Our client asserts with due reverence that what would be so special about the Ministry of Public service officials for them to have their airfares and accommodation fees paid from government funds in circumstances where the VVIPs found their own ways to attend the wedding,” the letter reads.

“In all fairness, what benefit would our client extract in having all these individuals attend the wedding? It is clear that our client did not use public funds to travel to Cape Town for the wedding. If the public funds were so easy to access, why would she not benefit from the same?”

“This clearly shows that she was not even involved in the alleged abuse of the funds. Those that benefitted should explain themselves not for the State to believe their mere say so.

“There is a real possibility that those behind those alleged illegal payments simply rode on the name dropping of our client’s name to get the necessary approvals for their own benefit.”

She said the State should not “be blinded by the appetite to get to our client to the extent of ignoring evidence to the effect that there are real perpetrators” urging the Prosecutor General to reconsider the decision to prosecute her.