Mukaratirwa’s beaming Land Cruiser Prado VXL which was procured at a cost of USD251 798
...as court implicates junior council officials
Rutendo Chirume
Masvingo City Council Town Clerk (TC) Edward Mukaratirwa, who has been on trial for corruption charges since last year, has today, May 05, 2025, been found not guilty by Magistrate Innocent Bepura.
It was the State’s case that Mukaratirwa corruptly authorised the procurement of his condition of service vehicle, a Toyota Prado VX-L, instead of a Toyota Prado VX, 3.0 litre engine which had been approved by City of Masvingo and the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works.
The Toyota Prado VX 3.0 litre engine was valued at US$109 151 while the Toyota Prado VX-L was valued at USD251 798, according to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
In his judgement, Bepura stated that the state failed to come up with evidence implicating Mukaratirwa and said that charges should have been laid on other individuals who were part of the procurement process.
“As per my analysis, the accused is not guilty and has been acquitted. It has been revealed through this case that even though the accused is the one at the end of procurement channel, he was not the one who changed or altered the initial resolution which had VX3 requisition instead of a VXL.
“The one Jabulani Ngorima who was responsible for requisitioning the vehicle is the one who changed the specifications to VXL which was flighted in the Government Gazette after Toyota Zimbabwe confirmed that they had no VX3 in stock by that time. Toyota National Sales Representative Gift Dzingiso also confirmed this.
“One of the defense witnesses, Kudzai Mbetu (deputy city engineer) who by that time authorised the requisition testified that Ngorima was the one who changed and altered the specifications of the initial resolution. Therefore, the arrest of the Town Clerk alone is unfair because there are several heads of department who facilitated procurement of this vehicle.
“We have been told of the number of stages followed before final procurement where the accused is the overseer. However, as evidenced, all the heads of department are equally responsible and should have been arrested. Why go for the last person on the procurement channel? Whether it’s negligence or intentional, the accused only signed as required by duty with no prior information whether there were some changes or alterations,” said Bepura
In his defense, Mukaratirwa, who was represented by Msindo Hungwe, submitted that he only signed for the advert to be flighted in the newspaper but had no idea it had been changed or altered.
