State opposes Chimombe, Mpofu renewed freedom bid

Mike Chimombe and his business partner Moses Mpofu

ZANU PF central committee member Mike Chimombe and his business partner Moses Mpofu’s freedom bid suffered a setback after the State dismissed the two’s applications for leave to appeal conviction and sentence by the High Court.

Prosecutor Whisper Mabhaudhi, in his response to the applications made by the two, asked the court to dismiss them because they lacked seriousness and merit.

“It is submitted that both applicants have no prospects of success on appeal against both conviction and sentence, wherefore it is prayed that the applications be dismissed for lack of seriousness and merit,” he submitted in his written response.

Mabhaudhi argued that the grounds of appeal advanced by Mpofu are not clear and, therefore, could not have prospects of success.

“It is submitted that grounds of appeal must be concise, clear, specific and unambiguous,” the prosecution submitted.

“They need to inform the court and the opposing party about the exact points of error in the court’s decision.

“In respect to this ground, the applicant merely alleged that the court erred in convicting the first applicant when the State had failed to prove all essential elements of the charge.”

On the appeal against sentence, the State described it as ridiculous.

“Mpofu is aggrieved that he was sentenced to an effective 17-year imprisonment. He believes that the appropriate sentence should have been three months imprisonment wholly suspended on condition he pays a fine of US$200. How ridiculous,” the State submitted.

Mpofu and Chimombe believe they were hard done when they were convicted and sentenced to effective 17- and 12-year prison terms following their conviction over an US$87 million presidential goats scheme.

In their appeal, they claimed the court had created its own charges and convicted them even without evidence, giving them a strong belief that their prospects of success are very high.

Chimombe’s lawyer Lovemore Madhuku said the leave to appeal should be granted because the charge his client was facing was of national importance and needed to be ventilated in full.

Related Topics