‘Why Pasi must face the music’

News
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (zimra) chairperson, Willia Bonyongwe says reports that she raised fabricated charges of misconduct against suspended Zimra commissioner-general, Gershem Pasi after he allegedly refused to award her company a contract, are unfounded.

Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (zimra) chairperson, Willia Bonyongwe says reports that she raised fabricated charges of misconduct against suspended Zimra commissioner-general, Gershem Pasi after he allegedly refused to award her company a contract, are unfounded.

BY CHARLES LAITON

In her lengthy affidavit filed in the High Court in response to Pasi’s urgent chamber application seeking to stop a disciplinary hearing set for Tuesday, Bonyongwe said she had no axe to grind with Pasi or any other employee, but was merely supervising the implementation of valid Zimra board resolutions.

“The unfounded allegations of bias and malice also ought not to be taken seriously. Not only can an applicant make such submissions at the hearing to discredit the complainant, but the allegations themselves have no merits,” she said.

“It cannot be said that all of the 45 counts which the applicant faces have been a creation of my own imagination.

“Indeed, the sheer number of counts actually demands that the applicant be made to answer, as opposed to his desired relief in these proceedings to return to work before clearing his name of those several counts of misconduct.”

In his application, Pasi accused Bonyongwe of targeting him after her company, Woodsbrand Investments allegedly lost a multimillion contract to refurbish Kurima House.

But Bonyongwe said she had nothing to do with Woodsbrand.

“I wish to specifically deal with allegations in respect of count number 37, namely the alleged preferential treatment of Rasams Electrical as it involves allegations against me personally.

“The company known as Woodsbrand Investments, in itself a separate entity at law, is of no relation to me, nor have I anything to do with its operations or management, nor do I have any stake [direct or indirect] therein,” she said.

“Any relations of mine are not barred from tendering for services with the 2nd respondent (Zimra).

“I am advised Woodsbrand Investments did not make a bid for renovations at Kurima House. I did not and do not interfere with such processes.”

Bonyongwe said part of the findings made in the audit report suggested that Pasi had breached his contract and the law.

This, Bonyongwe said, gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Pasi had committed acts of misconduct and was liable for disciplinary action for the offences.

“It is also noteworthy, as appears in the investigation report, that the applicant did not cooperate with investigators during the said investigations.

“I aver that the charges were done in terms of the registered employment code of conduct and grievance procedure for the second respondent and in terms of clause 9.2 of the code of conduct,” she said.

“I aver that following the findings of the investigation, I had good cause to charge the applicant of misconduct, as appears from the founding affidavit; the applicant does not seem to deny that he committed acts of misconduct.

“Rather, instead, raises procedural issues, which I will deal with herein.”

Bonyongwe said time was therefore of essence in the matter and went on to accuse Pasi of jumping the gun by filing an urgent chamber application “in a clear attempt to pre-empt the lawful proceedings which have been instituted”.

She urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing the matter was not urgent since Pasi knew, in May this year, that investigators had been appointed and ought to have raised the issues rather than wait for five months.

“The matter cannot now become urgent merely because the investigations have been completed, and the second respondent is now acting on the findings of the said investigations,” she said.

Bonyongwe said Pasi refused to cooperate during the investigations in circumstances where he could easily have cleared his name and dismissed contentions that he could not be charged in terms of Zimra’s code of conduct.

“The applicant herein is clearly and obviously an employee of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, as stated in the code of conduct.

“This is also clearly admitted by the applicant himself directly when he makes reference to his employment contract and indirectly, by accepting that he can be disciplined in terms of S.I. 15 of 2006. Only employees may be disciplined in terms of the section,” she said.

Bonyongwe also said there was no need for Pasi to take the matter to the High Court since the dispute between the parties was labour related and could be resolved by the Labour Court.

She also said it was improper for Pasi to only cite her in the application instead of the whole board.

“All the issues raised by the applicant in this urgent chamber application are capable of being raised before the hearing officer, and relief may be granted thereat with no need for the involvement of this honourable court,” Bonyongwe added. “There is effective redress in the domestic tribunals. I therefore urge this court….to decline to hear this matter on an urgent basis, but instead, to encourage the applicant to avail himself before the disciplinary hearing and answer to charges he is facing, and/or to raise any preliminary issues thereat,” she said.

“With respect, it is common cause that I am neither the second respondent nor the sole decision maker in the second respondent’s board.

“There is, therefore, no basis as to why I have been cited in this case. With respect I have no relationship with the applicant and especially so in respect of what is being challenged thereby.”

She added: “The applicant is being charged by the second respondent [Zimra] and not me.

“Additionally, the decision to investigate the second respondent’s operations was that of the whole board and not mine alone. In all respect, it is procedurally incorrect for the applicant to cherry pick me as the only member of the second respondent’s board to answer to his allegations when in actual fact, I was merely executing the resolutions of the whole board of the second respondent.”

The matter is still pending.