Zvikomborero Parafini

THE axed ZIFA executive has filed an application to the Constitutional Court over what they claim is their unlawful and unconstitutional prosecution.

Former ZIFA president, Felton Kamambo, and members of his executive, Philemon Machana, Stanley Chapeta, Joseph Mamutse and Bryton Malandule, are arguing that the National Prosecuting Authority has no grounds to continue with the prosecution because the Sports and Recreation Commission had withdrawn its complaint against them.

Machana stated in their application that the charge is now void and unconstitutional without a complainant.

The State has until Friday next week to respond to the application.

Machana told the court that they are victims of a false fraud complaint.

“I have for some months now been the victim of a false fraud complaint as the record bears the State has been alleging and submitting falsely that they intend to withdraw the charges consequent to the SRC which lodged the complaint and withdrew itself as a complainant.

“Resultantly, the State couldn’t proceed with the haste that it commenced the matter with.

“On June 19 last year, the then acting Prosecutor General received a letter from the chairman of the Sports and Recreation Commission to the effect that it was no longer the complainant in the matter.

“It, therefore, means that the State was aware that the complainant had withdrawn from the case.”

He added:

“Effectively, the complainant was withdrawing the criminal complaint against my colleagues and I.

“I managed through FIFA to lay my hands on the withdrawal letter, which was used as one of the basis to uplift the ban on ZIFA which, for all intense and purposes, was a welcome development.

“My legal practitioners of record proceeded to pen a letter to the then acting Prosecutor General urging him to exercise his powers in terms of the law to stop this prosecution.

“The letter was never responded to neither was there any confirmation of receipt.

“In the face of that withdrawal, it’s a clear indication by the complainant that the complainant’s officials did not wish to testify and, taking into account the fact that no trial could proceed without their evidence, all the circumstances considered, I was surprised to learn that the State was still bent on proceeding with the trial.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *