The State intensified its pursuit of justice yesterday as it sought to consolidate documents in a case involving an audacious attempt to defraud the government of nearly US$1 million in a failed Mbudzi interchange deal.
Levy Idana (39), a businessman and director of Ledmart Investments (private) limited, alongside Enerst Shenje, the deputy director of roads services in the Transport and Infrastructural Development ministry, appeared before Harare regional magistrate Donald Ndirowei on charges of orchestrating a scheme to misappropriate Mbudzi interchange compensation funds for personal enrichment.
Prosecutor Lancelot Mutsokoti, representing the State, fervently appealed for the merging of the dockets of the accused duo, emphasizing the gravity of the charges against them. Mutsokoti also disclosed that the State awaits a crucial statement on the matter from the Secretary of the Ministry of Transport.
The case, postponed to April 9, centers around allegations that the accused duo manipulated the compensation funds meant for property owners affected by the Mbudzi interchange project. The complainant, represented by the Secretary for the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development, asserts that the accused attempted to siphon off government funds through deceitful means.
Legal representatives Arshiel Mugiya and Admire Rubaya are defending Idana and Shenje, respectively, as they navigate the intricate legal proceedings.
The prosecution contends that in 2021, the Zimbabwean government, through the Transport ministry, launched a project to construct a multi-level interchange at Mbudzi, impacting 135 residential, industrial, and commercial properties. In response, a fund was established to compensate affected property owners following a thorough valuation process.
In 2022, the ministry conducted valuations on properties slated for acquisition due to the interchange construction. Prosecutors allege that the accused pair colluded to defraud the government by submitting falsified claims. As a result of their actions, the complainant suffered a direct financial loss of US$200,000, with a potential additional prejudice of US$803,417 hanging over the case.