Court sets free former ministry director in 323m/- graft case

FAUSTINE KAPAMA

THE Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam yesterday set free former Director of Legal Services in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, Rugonzibwa Mujunangoma, on a charge of corruptly obtaining over 323m/- from businessman, James Rugemalira.

Senior Resident Magistrate Victoria Nongwa discharged the ex-senior government official after the prosecutor with the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB), Mr Leonard Swai, decided to withdraw the charge against him under section 98 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).

Mujunangoma was arraigned first before the court to face the charge on January 14, 2015, with the money being linked with the escrow account that had been opened at the Bank of Tanzania by the Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) and the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco).

However, during the course of the trial, the PCCB made amendments to the charge, confirming that the monies allegedly offered to the accused by Mr Rugemalira, a Director of VIP Engineering and Marketing and former Director of IPTL, were not linked with Tegeta Escrow Account.

According to the charge sheet, Mujunangoma was alleged to have corruptly obtained for himself advantage of 323,400,000/- through his bank account from the prominent businessman, as a reward for handling IPTL affairs as provisional liquidator, the matter which was related to the principal’s affairs.

It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused person had failed to notify his principal, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry and the Ethics Commission about the reward in question.

The prosecution had maintained that Mujunangoma committed the offence on February 5, 2014 at Mkombozi Bank, St Joseph Branch within Ilala Municipality. The accused person had denied the charge and was out on bail.

Prosecution of the trial faced a number of obstacles, with the defence challenging the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the matter, as the case had touched constitutional issues which should be looked into for the court to issue proper directions.

In his notice to object to the hearing of the matter, Mujunangoma filed 12 grounds, accusing Standard Chartered Bank of committing fraud and theft of IPTL funds and assets.

“There is prima facie evidence demonstrating that the persons who ought to be charged for committing fraud and theft of IPTL funds and assets include Standard Chartered Bank and its subsidiaries and af filiates, Mechmar and Wartsilas,”

he stated in the notice filed before the court. According to his notice, the questions relating to the case have arisen on the contraventions of Article 13 (6) and (b), Article 2 (1) and (2),Article 107A (1) and Article 107B of the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania.

Mujunangoma stated that since the court was not seized with jurisdictions to entertain the matter over questions on the contravention of the Constitution, he was of the views that the court should have dismissed the case or stay the proceedings and refer the same to the High Court for decision.

He claimed that the charges filed against him emanated from proceedings and resolutions of the National Assembly which had been barred by an order of the High Court issued on November 25, 2014, hence violating such order and the Constitution.

The notice stated that the accused was amongst those persons condemned unheard by the National Assembly in its proceedings conducted between November 24 and 29, 2014 while discussing and deliberating the report submitted by the Public Accounts Committee on Tegeta Escrow Account.

Such situation, he stated in the notice, violated his constitutional right to have his rights and obligations determined by a court of law after having been dully heard.

He alleged that his constitutional right of resumption of innocence until found guilty was violated by the National Assembly in the process.

According to the notice, facts, matters and circumstances constituting or upon which the charges were preferred were sub-judice in two High Court Constitutional proceedings, both involving IPTL and others, as plaintiffs and Prime Minister, Speaker of the National Assembly and others, as defendants.

“Entertaining Criminal Case No. 11 of 2015 by the Resident Magistrate’s Court shall amount to disobedience of a superior lawful order of the Constitutional Court dated November 25, 2014, which ordered the status quo as (of that date) shall be maintained,” reads part of the notice.

As a general note, he stated, under Article 4 of the Constitution, it must be recalled that the Constitution affirms the essentials separation of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the government.

Each pillar has its powers defined by the Constitution. The legislative power is committed to the Parliament, which also enjoys certain powers to investigate and to supervise the Executive department as per Article 63 and 64 of the Constitution.

But the Parliament does not have the powers to pass bills of attainder against individuals.