HARARE Regional Magistrate Hosea Mujaya has released the passport of the Director General for Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (POTRAZ) Gift Machengete following the State’s consent to have it released temporarily on the grounds that he has demonstrated ability to bring it back after his business.
The court ruled that he must return his passport on March 30 as part of his bail conditions.
Machengete was facing charges of criminal abuse of office until the State changed them to contravening the public procurement and disposal of public asset regulations, a move that has seen him to applying for exception to charges.
The State amended charges against the Director General of Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (POTRAZ) Gift Machengete from criminal abuse of office to contravening the public procurement and disposal of public asset regulations, a move that has made him to apply for exception to charges.
Machengete who is being represented by Selby Hwacha and Farai Zuva has long challenged the validity of the new charge on the basis that the charges were devoid of facts that explicitly show how the offence was committed.
The matter was deferred to April 5 for ruling as the State was not yet ready to respond.
The State now alleges that Machengete was being charged with the crime of inducing a procuring entity to engage in procurement by a method that is prohibited by the Act of public procurement and disposal of public assets regulations of 2018.
“The charge as read by the State outline is completely devoid of any details, particulars, facts or information as to how the accused allegedly ‘induced’ or intended to induce POTRAZ as a procuring entity to engage in a procurement by a method that is prohibited by the Act, facts alleging inducement are critical,” read the application.
“In the absence of anything in the charge and or outline of the State case particularising exactly how the accused allegedly induced or intended to induce POTRAZ to adopt the alleged prohibited procurement method, the charge is vague and it does not constitute a cognizable and certain offence to which the accused person can be asked to answer. It is not legally tenable for an accused to plead to a charge in which there is no averment as to how he allegedly committed the offence.”
The defense also allegedly that all Machengete did was sign a contract prepared by the legal division of POTRAZ.
The matter was postponed to March 25 for trial and the State is expected to respond to the application on the same date.
Allegations are that sometime in December 2017, POTRAZ a procuring entity resolved to procure containerized village information centres (CVICs) which were going to be mounted country wide.
On February 7, 2018, Machengete wrote to the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (PRAZ) requesting a waiver of procurement regulations to enable the Authority to purchase CVICs through quotations citing that container conversion was a specialized area.
PRAZ wrote back to POTRAZ advising them to follow the provisions of section 30 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act which provides for the procurement methods.
The accounting officer was directed to procure through the normal tender process and on February 15, Machengete caused the sourcing of quotations for the supply of the CVICs from four companies and a memo recommending the transaction he also approved.
POTRAZ subsequently purchased 24 CVICs from B Smart business solutions at $70 682.95 each making a total value of $ 1 494 104, 33 through comparative schedule despite the fact that the value involved needed competitive bidding method in terms of the said Act and regulations Machengete had been directed to follow by PRAZ.
On April 6 Machengete then signed the contract between POTRAZ and B Smart solutions for the purchase and supply of the CVICs. B Smart Solutions has since erected 20 CVICs and Machengete has since paid $1 032 755. 38.
Machengete acted without lawful excuse by inducing POTRAZ a procurement entity in terms of the Act to engage in procurement of CVICs using quotation method that is prohibited by the Act in view of the price of the procurement requirement, the court heard.