By Judith Nyuke
Traditional leader, Chief Murinye born Ephias Munodawafa has been cleared of extortion charges by the Masvingo Regional Court ending his high-profile legal battle with businessman Philemon Mutangiri over Riverton Academy’s operations.
Through his defense counsel Admire Rubaya, Chief Murinye denied the extortion claims asserting that the case was merely a tactic by Mutangiri to punish him for raising legal concerns over the land acquisition and construction of the school.
The State had accused the traditional leader of demanding that Mutangiri electrify his homestead and extend electricity from his fields to Boroma Dam.
It further alleged that Murinye wanted Mutangiri to enrol all his children at Riverton Academy free of charge and enter into a written agreement guaranteeing them free education indefinitely.
According to the State’s case, Chief Murinye and headman Solomon Mukamwe allegedly blocked a school bus carrying pupils to Riverton Academy Murinye on January 11.
The alleged incidents occurred at the Topora-Rukovo Secondary School turn-off and later at the Riverton Academy Murinye turn-off.
The pair allegedly used a grey, unregistered Isuzu twin cab and a Nissan Vannette to force Mutangiri to meet the chief’s demands.
Murinye rejected the allegations and applied for his discharge at the close of the State’s case.
Through Rubaya, the chief maintained that the dispute was actually rooted in concerns over whether Riverton Academy had been lawfully established.
“The complainant is seeking to persecute the Accused person through abuse of the criminal justice system because the Accused as a Traditional leader who presides over a community court known as Chief Murinye`s court made a collective decision together with Headman Clemence Mukamwi and Village Head Marko Machingura that the school ought only to continue being built in their area of jurisdiction after full compliance with due process of the laws of Zimbabwe.”
The defence argued that Mutangiri was attempting to conceal alleged failures to obtain the necessary approvals before constructing the school.
“The Complainant is only seeking to cover up for his own failure to follow the provisions of the laws of Zimbabwe, which required the Complainant, as the responsible authority, to apply to the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education for the construction and establishment of the school called Glenlivet School before it could be constructed.”
Rubaya further alleged that the school was built without the required local authority approvals.
“The Complainant further lodged this criminal complaint against the Accused in a bid to cover up for the non-existence of the required Masvingo Rural District Full Council Resolution and a development permit which were prerequisites for the lawful construction of a school which prerequisites were supposed to be obtain before the construction of the school had commenced.”
The defence also questioned whether approved building plans existed and whether council inspectors had supervised construction.
“Further he didn’t want people to know that he built the school in question using unapproved building plans if they exist at all and in the absence of the required supervision from council`s building inspectors. Thus, these allegations are just designed to hoodwink the authorities and the general populace so that they do not enquire whether the school in question was lawfully constructed in full compliance with the law.”
Murinye also disputed the claim that Mutangiri had connected electricity to his homestead, saying he relied on solar power.
“The Accused denies that the Complainant connected any electricity at his place of residence since he uses solar power at his house. The Complainant is only grandstanding, seeking to look for fame using the Accused’s name,” his lawyer submitted.
The chief’s defence also challenged the State to produce evidence of alleged threats against Mutangiri and to establish whether the businessman had ever given him any gifts.
In his application for discharge, Murinye argued that the criminal proceedings had been triggered by his objections to the school’s alleged acquisition and development of state land.
He referred to the controversial practice of “sabhuku deals”, alleging that the land had been obtained through such arrangements.
“It is clear that the real issue related to whether the Complainant built the school in question in full compliance with the law or not. He was clear that he obtained the state land in question through the notorious “Sabhuku deals”. In the circumstances, it can easily be concluded, and rightfully so, that the complaint and the allegations weak as they are, are purely simulated and have been made solely to harass the Accused person for exposing underhand and shady dealings by Complainant regards State land.”
The defence argued that the charges were intended to discourage the chief from questioning the legality of the school’s construction.
“. . . these charges are designed to silence the Accused as a traditional leader for the area not to raise issues regards the lawfulness of the construction of the school in issue in the absence of strict compliance to the law.”
The State opposed the application for discharge and proposed that, if the court was unwilling to put Murinye on his defence on the extortion charge, he could instead be called to answer a charge of disorderly conduct arising from the alleged road blockade.
The court rejected that proposal, ruling that disorderly conduct had not been charged as an alternative offence from the outset and could not constitute a competent verdict on the extortion charge.
The court consequently upheld the chief’s application for discharge and acquitted him effectively ending the extortion case.
The acquittal leaves the broader dispute over the legality of Riverton Academy’s construction and the acquisition of the land as a separate issue from the criminal proceedings against the traditional leader.
