Source: NEC executives acquitted – herald
Peter Tanyanyiwa-Herald Correspondent
EXECUTIVES of the National Employment Council (NEC) for the Medical and Allied Industries were acquitted of contempt of court charges after the State failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
The ruling, delivered by Magistrate Tapiwa Banda at the Harare Magistrates Court, centred on allegations that the NEC executives had failed to implement a High Court order (HH308/24) issued by Justice Musithu in July 2024.
The order required them to recognise Ms Tecla Barangwe and her team as the legitimate leadership of the Medical Professions and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe (MPAWUZ) for representation within the Council.
The State, through its sole witness, Ms Tecla Barangwe, alleged that Mr Brian Chabuka (NEC chief executive officer) and Mr Michael Sambo (NEC deputy chairperson) had willfully disregarded Justice Musithu’s judgment by failing to convene a board meeting to enforce the ruling from February 6, 2025, onward.
However, the court found the charges premature, as the four-month compliance period had not yet expired.
The magistrate clarified that the timeline for compliance only commenced on February 6, 2025, when the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the original High Court order.
“The accused are still within the four-month period to comply, and they cannot be held in contempt while that timeframe remains active,” Magistrate Banda ruled.
The court further noted that implementing the High Court order before the Supreme Court’s decision would have been unlawful, as the pending appeal had automatically suspended the judgment.
The case, which has drawn attention to concerns over the weaponisation of the justice system in labour disputes under the Labour Act, was decided based on Section 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].
This provision mandates a not guilty verdict if the prosecution fails to present sufficient evidence at the close of its case.
The defence’s successful application for discharge rested on two key arguments: the absence of evidence proving an essential element of the offense and the unreliability of the State’s evidence.
The ruling aligns with legal precedent set in S v Hartlebury & Anor 1985 (1) ZLR 1 (HC), which outlines conditions for granting discharge in such matters.
Meanwhile, the executives have lodged a formal complaint with the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) leadership questioning the circumstances of their arrest and detention.
COMMENTS