Sate opposes Kamambo’s application


THE State insists Zifa president Felton Kamambo has a case to answer for allegedly buying votes during the football body’s 2018 December polls.

Kamambo is facing 32 counts of bribery after he allegedly made mobile money payments to the Zifa councillors in exchange for votes in an election in which he edged out then Zifa president Philip Chiyangwa, who is the complainant in the matter.

Earlier last week, the Zifa boss filed an application for exception before regional magistrate Bianca Makwande as he sought to have the charges thrown out.

Kamambo’s application stated that the allegations are defective and embarrassing as they do not reveal a cognisable offence at law and that even if proved to be true, the allegations cannot actuate criminal sanction.

However, in a counter application filed on Friday, State counsel Michael Reza opposed Kamambo’s application and insisted the bribery charges were consistent at law.

“A reading of the application by the defence appears to solely centre around whether or not the persons allegedly bribed by the accused person were ‘agents’ and if so whose agents.

“The State believes that every one of the persons who received money from the accused person or from his former campaign manager were agents as anticipated in the Section… of the Code,” Reza’s application read.

The State detailed why Kamambo’s application should be dismissed.

“Of these members, 18 are PSL clubs, four are Division One regions, 10 are provinces etc. It is therefore settled that Zifa members cannot act on their own since they are legal persons. They can only act through agent/delegates.

“When voting time came, each and every one of the people who entered the voting booths did not do so in their individual capacities. They voted merely as delegates (representatives/agents).

“None of them was acting or entitled to act and vote exclusively on his or her behalf but on behalf of a Zifa member that would have sent them to the congress.

“This is why the offering of money on the pretext that it is for food or fuel is purely criminal because these costs are fully borne by the member that sends the agent/delegate,” Reza stated.

Comments are closed.