High Court hears evidence distancing Mzembi from disposal of govt property

HARARE – Testimony presented by the State in the High Court on Wednesday suggested that former Tourism Minister Walter Mzembi did not have direct legal authority to dispose of government property, with witnesses outlining that such powers rest with accounting officers within the civil service.

Mzembi is on trial before Justice Benjamin Chikowero, facing charges of criminal abuse of office and theft of trust property linked to the alleged donation of government-owned television screens to several religious institutions.

He has denied the allegations and is being represented by Emmanuel Samundombe and Killian Mandiki.

The court heard that government assets are procured using funds appropriated through the national budget and are administered by Permanent Secretaries, who serve as accounting officers.

According to State witnesses, ministers may provide policy direction but are not empowered to personally execute the disposal or donation of state property.

Zvinechimwe Ruvinga Churu, a Deputy Chief Secretary in the Office of the President and Cabinet, testified that the law requires accounting officers to obtain authorisation from the Ministry of Finance before any government asset can be donated or disposed of.

“A minister, without the accounting officer undertaking the necessary formalities, cannot make a donation,” Churu said.

The witness explained that the responsibility for safeguarding ministry assets lies with the Permanent Secretary, adding that even where a minister issues an instruction, it is the accounting officer who must ensure compliance with the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act.

Churu said he would not dispute the legality of the transaction if evidence showed that a Cabinet task force had sanctioned the movement of the screens.

Further evidence was given by retired Permanent Secretary Thokozile Alice Rosemary Chitepo, who served as accounting officer in the Ministry of Tourism between 2017 and early 2018.

Chitepo confirmed that the television screens were purchased using public funds following Treasury approval of a US$2 million allocation for public viewing equipment during the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

She told the court that assets acquired through government funding remain state property and can only be disposed of with approval from the Ministry of Finance.

Chitepo added that, in normal practice, it is the Permanent Secretary who issues correspondence authorising donations on behalf of government.

Although Chitepo testified that letters relating to six television screens were signed by Mzembi, she conceded that she was not in office at the time and could not account for the circumstances surrounding the transactions.

She also acknowledged that the alleged donations occurred during a period when the government was promoting religious tourism.

Earlier in the proceedings, a March 2016 asset audit letter from former Permanent Secretary Florence Nhekairo was placed before the court, in which she stated that all ministry assets had been physically verified and that records were properly maintained.

Reacting to the testimony, a relative of the accused, Laurence Mzembi, said the evidence supported the family’s position that Mzembi was being wrongly portrayed as having personally disposed of the assets.

In a statement he posted on Facebook, Laurence Mzembi argued that the television screens were loaned rather than donated and remained government property, adding that the initiative was part of a Cabinet-approved religious tourism strategy.

“The media and the State have often used the word ‘donation’ to suggest the assets were given away. However, the testimony from the State’s own witnesses today confirmed:

“The TV screens were loaned, not gifted, and remain government property,” Lawrence Mzembi stated.

“The action was taken to support religious tourism, a Cabinet-approved initiative to bring visitors to the country.

“Walter’s letter specifically tasked the Permanent Secretary with the logistics—showing he followed the chain of command.”

He also questioned the application of laws enacted after the period in question, saying actions dating back to 2011–2014 should not be assessed using later legal amendments.

The trial was adjourned to February 3 for further hearing.