EMBATTLED former Harare town clerk, Tendai Mahachi has been acquitted of awarding a company a deal to construct and upgrade Airport Road and thereby allegedly prejudiced council of US$80 million.
Mahachi was found not guilty and freed after a full trial during which he denied the allegations.
Mahachi was initially charged with former mayor Sekesai Makwavarara, who was discharged at the close of State's case. Another co-accused, Michael Mahachi was separated from proceedings after making a Constitutional Court application.
The State was alleging that sometime during 2007 City of Harare (CoH) planned to upgrade the road leading to Robert Mugabe International Airport.
Prosecutors also said on June 2 that year, the three working in connivance corruptly caused CoH to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with Augur Investments Pvt Ltd without council resolution.
It was alleged that they also did not follow tender procedures, the State, alleged.
Court heard they signed the said memorandum representing council while Augur Investments was represented by Alexander Sheremet.
The State was further alleging that in September 2007 Mahachi caused the local authority to further enter into a shareholder's agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on May 21, 2008.
Resultantly in March 2008 the CoH entered into an agreement with Augur Investments, which is purportedly based in Ukraine.
The agreements were for construction and upgrading of the road at a cost of US$80 million.
Augur was to fund and provide expertise on the project and council was to cede pieces of land to the company in lieu of work done on the road.
The project was divided into four phases and was to be completed by 2010.
The shareholders agreed that title deeds of the pieces of land to be transferred to Augur Investments were to be held in trust by Colgahn Welsh and Guest lawyers and pending transfer upon completion and certification of work done.
It was alleged that the three again hatched a plan to violate provisions of the law and engaged augur Investments which was not registered in Zimbabwe under the Company's Act and Zimbabwe Investments Authority (ZIA).
The company was later registered in Zimbabwe in 2010 after the life span of the project had expired.
Prosecutors said the engagement of Augur Investment was in violation of the Urban Councils Act.
The project was taken over by the government in 2014.
Prosecutors alleged that the CoH was prejudiced of US$80 million, the value of land measuring over 10 000 hectares that was transferred to Augur Investments.
However, Harare Magistrate Vongai Muchuchuti said the State's case was weak for a reasonable court to convict.
Muchuchuti said prosecutors had failed to outline Mahachi's roles to pin point where he got things wrong.
The magistrate also said the witnesses had exonerated Mahachi.
"Mafoti who was one of the Executive Committee members clearly exonerated all the accused persons regarding the charges at hand.
"He conceded that the Executive Committee which sat on the 18th of June 2007 which meeting he chaired is the one which passed resolutions relating to the formation of a Joint Venture company between Augur and City of Harare for the upgrading and construction of the Airport Road," said Muchuchuti.
During trial Mahachi's lawyer Admire Rubaya also argued that his client was not the one who picked Augur Investments.
Rubaya said the Executive Committee had delegated authority from the Commission to the extent that the entering of the CoH and Augur Ltd (Ukraine) into a joint venture partnership for the provision of middle-income housing and hotel development at Warren Hill Golf Course area, Hopley Commercial area and develop Mukuvisi Phase 1 incorporating Airport Road.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Rubaya also argued that the MOU was not entered into by the Mahachi, but he signed it on the instruction of the CoH's ultimate authority then.
"It is critical to state that the accused person was just an employee of the City of Harare and was not a member of the Executive Committee, the commission and or the council which in turn would ordinarily make the decisions on whether to engage any service providers or not.
"The accused person can not possibly be found to be criminally liable regards signing documents on behalf of council more so where there is an enabling resolution to that effect.
"He was just like a spectator but now he is being asked to account for the decision to enter into the memorandum of understanding in circumstances where he was not part of the decision-makers," Rubaya argued.
His arguments found favour with the court.
