Harare — A GWANDA man accused of stealing 15 bags of maize grain from his employer, the Grain Marketing Board, has filed a constitutional application challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law used to charge him.

Sithembinkosi Sibanda, a general hand at the GMB Esigodini depot, is being charged under Section 174 of the Criminal Law Codification (Reform) Act.

The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Patrick Chinamasa, one of the respondents, is yet to respond to the application.

Sibanda, who is being jointly charged with Bokani Ncube, is currently out on bail.

Charges against the two arose on 15 October this year when they allegedly connived to steal 15 x 50 kilogramme bags of maize grain from the GMB, which they exchanged for a beast.

The section says it is an offence for a public officer to show favour or disfavour to any person while exercising his or her functions.

It further says such an officer shall be guilty of criminal abuse of duty and liable to a fine or imprisonment or both.

In an application filed at the Supreme Court yesterday, Sibanda cited Cde Chinamasa and the Attorney General's Office as respondents.

He is seeking an order nullifying the contentious section, arguing that it unreasonably infringes on his right to protection of the law particularly the right to be presumed innocent until proved or has pleaded guilty as provided by the law.

"Section 174 of the Criminal Law Codification (Reform) Act is void on the grounds that it unreasonably infringes the protection of the law as provided for in Section 18 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe," read part of the order sought.

Sibanda in his papers argues that the State indicated that he contravened the disputed section, which he argues cannot on its own constitute a criminal offence.

The section, he further argues, does not create an offence or provide a penalty.

Sibanda also argues that the disputed section was overbroad such that a putative class of public officers might refrain from effectively carrying out their duties for fear that their actions might be deemed unlawful.

The wording of the section, he argues, exposes public officers to malicious arrest and detention for no apparent reason even where it is not warranted.