Fired ZBC bosses appeal to High Court

Two former Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) executives, who were fired in 2015, have petitioned the High Court seeking an order to compel the State broadcaster to provide them with critical documents to enable them to properly defend themselves of allegations of costing the company millions of dollars in alleged fraudulent activities.

Former general manager — finance, Elliot Kasu, and former finance head, Ralph Nyambudzi, filed a chamber application on Wednesday this week, citing former ZBC chairperson Cuthbert Dube and other ex-bosses of the State broadcaster, Happison Muchechetere, Allan Chiweshe and Tazzen Mandizvidza as respondents.

Kasu and Nyambudzi were suspended together with Muchechetere on allegations of costing the national broadcaster millions of dollars.

They were also accused of awarding themselves hefty salaries at a time the troubled national broadcaster's employees went for more than six months without salaries.

But Kasu and Nyambudzi said they could not proffer a reasonable defence to the accusations if the national broadcaster was withholding critical information which they need to use in support of their case.

"In proceedings under case number HC 2770/15 awaiting trial date, applicants (Kasu and Nyambudzi) have sought from the respondents (ZBC, Dube, Muchechetere, Chiweshe and Mandizvidza) the production of certain documents by way of formal notice dated February 8, 2017," the two said.

"The first respondent (ZBC) has produced some of the documents, save the ones being requested in this application. A full copy of the KPMG forensic audit report produced on behalf of the first respondent, copies of payslips for the applicants over the period 2009 to the 2013, copies of the resolutions made by the board of directors of the first respondent for the period 2009 to 2013, and copies of correspondences between the plaintiff and the Minister of Information from September 2009 to December 2009."

In his founding affidavit, Kasu said the two were seeking an order compelling their former employer to produce some documents which they feel will be able to help them defend themselves during trial.

Kasu further said failure to produce the requested documents could be highly prejudicial to their case.

"The failure by first respondent to produce the said documents is highly prejudicial to the applicants. It means applicants will not be able to produce evidence to support the defences they have advanced in this litigation," he said.

"Specifically, the first respondent is required to produce and deliver to the applicants a copy of a letter by the Secretary for Information authorising the purchase of vehicles by the first respondent."

The matter is pending.