By Nyasha Chuma
A SENIOR lecturer at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) Zephaniah Dhlamini has been sucked into an alleged conspiracy to defeat the course of justice by attempting to bribe a High Court judge to gain an advantage in a farm dispute before the courts.
Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (Osisa) director Siphosami Malunga Malunga, and his business associates Charles Moyo and Zephania Dlamini, approached the Bulawayo High Court in July challenging Government’s acquisition of “their” farm in Nyamandlovu, Matabeleland North.
This came after Government gazetted Kershelmar Farms (Private) Limited measuring 553 hectares for compulsory acquisition, and allocated part of the farm to National University for Science and Technology (Nust) lecturer Dumisani Madzivanyati.
Malunga and his partners then approached the courts, accusing Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) deputy director-general Gatsha Mazithulela of influencing the seizure of the farm for his benefit after he tried with no success to force his way into the ownership structure of Kershelmar.
Agriculture minister Anxious Masuka, Matabeleland North chief lands officer, the Registrar of Deeds, Madzivanyati, Mpofu and Matabeleland North Provincial Affairs minister Richard Moyo were also cited as respondents.
However, in a new development, Zim Morning Post is in possession of an audio in which Dhlamini is negotiating to pay a bribe to a High Court judge to influence the outcome of the case.
“The money for legal representation has to be a lot such that even if the judge is to be bought/bribed then so be it (laughing),” said Dlamini in the audio.
The audio emerges as the Dhlamini and his business parties approached the courts praying for the seizure of the farm to be declared “null and void”.
Efforts to get a comment from Dhlamini hit a snag as his mobile phone was not reachable at the time of writing.
In an opposing affidavit filed on August 27 through the Civil Division of the Attorney General (AG)’s Office, Masuka said the High Court could not nullify the farm acquisition for redistribution to the landless.
“The land in question is State land and does not belong to the applicants. In addition to this, the applicants miss one critical point on dealing with acquisition issues. The acquisition process is governed and provided by section 72 of the Constitution which makes it clear that once a piece of land is gazetted, it immediately becomes State land and this process cannot be challenged through the courts,” Masuka said.
