The Zimbabwean government is taking a firm stance against corruption, launching a legal battle to reclaim vehicles allegedly imported fraudulently under the civil servants’ vehicle rebate scheme.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has filed a civil forfeiture application at the High Court, seeking to seize vehicles belonging to 30 individuals accused of conniving with a former Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) official to defraud the government.
The case revolves around Tambudzai Yvonne Musoni, a former Zimra office assistant who is currently on the run. Musoni is accused of hacking into her supervisor’s computer, forging signatures, and approving the importation of over 400 vehicles under the guise of the civil servants’ rebate scheme.
The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) investigation implicated Musoni, leading the Prosecutor-General to seek a property freezing order against her and her husband, Melusi. This order, which has since been granted, includes a house, vehicles, and funds held in bank accounts linked to Watershed College and Lusitania Primary School, where their children attend.
The NPA, through its director of the Asset Management Unit, Chris Mutangadura, has now taken the next step, filing a separate civil forfeiture application to seize the vehicles purchased by the 30 individuals accused of working with Musoni.
“The applicant received a docket from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, in respect of criminal activities around importation of motor vehicles by the respondents using civil servants’ vehicle import duty exemption scheme that was introduced by the Government as a policy measure to allow civil servants to import motor vehicles without paying import duty,” said Mutangadura in his application.
“In every situation, I made observations regarding the unlawful activities whose proceeds of crime manifest in the unlawful importation of the vehicles as shall be made clear hereunder.
“At the heart of this application is a grand scheme by the respondents to criminally abuse an otherwise genuine and well-meaning Government policy meant to benefit civil servants who qualified for tax exemption of motor vehicles imported by them, save for those respondents cited in their official capacities who are innocent as regards the stinging criminal allegations I shall lay bare in these papers.”
The NPA alleges that Zimra was prejudiced by approximately US$64,179 and ZW$10,512,362 due to this fraudulent scheme.
The individuals named in the application include:
- Noah Munongoverwa
- Agness Matsvairo
- Peteous Ndovorwi
- Patricia Mudzimba
- Johnson Sithole
- Tariro Marvelous Chisvo
- Antonio Slyvester
- Justice Masawi
- Ruwadzano Gloria
- Dube Appronia
- Benda Sambizi
- Itai Rebecca Jamba
- Tendai Chirozva
- Nyasha Chigamba
- Tapiwa Gono
- Douglas Chazireni
- Maxwell Mukaro
- Elvis Murauro
- Dennis Dzikiti
- Sarudzai Kaseke
- Nyandundu Simon
- Mahachi Demetrio
- Manhango
- Dilan Chigama
- Alice Mazikana
- Charity Mapira
- Lazarus Musamba
- Mungofa Runyararo
The NPA alleges that these individuals, along with Musoni, engaged in various fraudulent activities to secure the importation of vehicles under the rebate scheme. These activities included undervaluing imported cars, using fake civil servants’ rebate letters, and utilising fraudulently issued rebate clearance letters.
“In respect of the first to sixth respondents, their case revolves around my desire to identify the criminal activities by first respondent Tambudzai Yvonne Musoni, who masterminded participation of the rest of the other respondents in perpetuating unlawful use of forged documents, misrepresentation of facts and eventual money laundering arising from calculated scheme to defraud the Government of Zimbabwe of its revenue by benefiting individuals cited who imported vehicles without proper procedures and lawful paperwork,” said Mutangadura.
“Resultantly, first respondent Tambudzai Yvonne Musoni ended up deriving a benefit by taking bribes from her accomplices, which generated the property now subject of a property freezing order by the High Court. The property specified above was acquired by the respondent through unlawful activity, knowing, believing or suspecting that it is proceeds of crime.”
