Chief Murinye acquitted of extortion charges

Traditional leader Chief Murinye, born Ephias Munodawafa, has been cleared of extortion charges by the Masvingo Regional Court, bringing to an end his high-profile legal battle with businessman Philemon Mutangiri over the operations of Riverton Academy.

The chief had denied the allegations through his lawyer, Admire Rubaya, arguing that the criminal case was being used to punish him for raising concerns over the legality of the school's land acquisition and construction.

The State had accused Murinye of demanding that Mutangiri electrify his homestead and extend electricity from his fields to Boroma Dam.

It further alleged that the traditional leader wanted Mutangiri to enrol all his children at Riverton Academy free of charge and sign a written agreement guaranteeing them free education indefinitely.

The State alleged that Murinye and headman Solomon Mukamwe 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 comply with the chief's alleged demands.

Murinye rejected the allegations and applied for discharge at the close of the State's case.

Through Rubaya, he argued that the dispute was fundamentally about whether Riverton Academy had been lawfully established in the area.

"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 submitted.

The lawyer 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 said.

The defence further alleged that the school had been constructed without the necessary 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," the lawyer submitted.

The defence also questioned whether approved building plans existed and whether council inspectors had supervised the 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," Rubaya said.

Murinye also denied the allegation 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," the defence submitted.

The chief's lawyers also challenged the State to produce evidence supporting alleged threats against Mutangiri and establish whether the businessman had ever given Murinye any gifts.

In seeking discharge, the defence argued that the criminal proceedings had been triggered by Murinye's objections to what he alleged was the improper acquisition and development of State land for the school.

The defence 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," the defence said.

It argued that the extortion allegations were "purely simulated" and intended to harass Murinye for questioning the alleged dealings involving State land.

The defence further argued that the charges were designed to silence the traditional leader from raising concerns about the legality of the school's construction.

The State opposed the application for discharge and proposed that, if the court was unwilling to place Murinye on his defence on the extortion charge, he could instead be called upon 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 Murinye's application for discharge and acquitted him, effectively bringing the extortion case to an end.

The acquittal, however, leaves the broader dispute over the legality of Riverton Academy's construction and the acquisition of the land as a separate matter from the criminal proceedings against the traditional leader.