By Staff Reporter
POLICE and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) could be guilty of selective application of the law after they have allowed under-fire NetOne acting chairperson Susan Mutangadura to roam freely with the courts failing to proceed with her perjury case owing to her non-availability.
Mutangadura is a wanted person in a case in which she is accused of falsely claiming under oath that Harare business executive Douglas Mamvura was not a NetOne Board member.
She is jointly accused with Ranga Mavhunga who on Thursday appeared at the Harare magistrate’s court, but his case could not be heard owing to the continued absence of her co-accused, Mutangadura.
On Thursday, the prosecutor in the matter had earlier on stated they could not find Mutangadura, who ironically is always in and out of the local courts pursuing a Supreme Court appeal issued against the termination of some senior employees’ contracts in line with an infamous court ruling granting Zimbabwean employers the right to send workers home on three months’ notice.
Mavhunga was later remanded to 27 January 2021 as the state sought time to pursue Mutangadura.
Meanwhile, the slippery NetOne boss has filed a Supreme Court appeal against a High Court ruling ordering her and the company to reinstate fired senior employees.
The move however is reportedly causing cracks within the newly appointed NetOne board amid claims Mutangadura could be unilaterally driving the unpopular agenda.
Said a concerned board member who prefers anonymity for fear of victimisation, “When we sit for board meetings, we set agendas and report the outcomes with recommendations as the board to the chairperson.
“What we are now seeing now are unilateral decisions to appeal over a case which we will likely lose at costs,”
The NetOne board is still smarting from a High Court ruling that compelled the telecoms firm to abide by the tenets of corporate governance.
Through her lawyers, Mutangadura wrote the apex court appealing at cost, meaning she wants NetOne to even pay for the respondents’ legal costs.
She argued that in terms of rule 46 (i) of the Supreme Court rules 2018, the appellant tenders the costs for the preparation of the record in full as soon as same has been determined.
“Take further notice that the appellant tenders security for the first and second respondent’s costs of the appeal,” she wrote.
Under her grounds of appeal, Mutangadura is submits that the High Court judge erred in her decision by stating that the “court a quo misdirected itself in determining without jurisdiction, a labour matter”.
“Having found that the common law right to terminate a permanent contract of employment on notice was not amended by the provisions of the Amendment Act 5 of 2015.
“The court a quo misdirected itself in holding that the appellant’s termination of the first and second respondents’ permanent contracts of employment without giving them reasons therefore was a nullity,” she submitted in her appeal.