×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Retired colonel sues Sekeramayi, Defence ministry for $175k

News
A RETIRED soldier, Colonel Elliot Piki, has approached the High Court seeking $175 000 from the Ministry of Defence as compensation for maliciously prosecuting him on false charges of stealing fuel.

A RETIRED soldier, Colonel Elliot Piki, has approached the High Court seeking $175 000 from the Ministry of Defence as compensation for maliciously prosecuting him on false charges of stealing fuel.

BY CHARLES LAITON

gavel

Early this year, Piki issued summons against Defence minister Sydney Sekeramayi and deputy secretary (finance and administration) in the same ministry as respondents under case number 226/16.

Last Thursday, Sekeramayi and the deputy secretary entered an appearance to defend notice with a view to challenge Piki’s claim against the military.

According to Piki, sometime in October 2012, he was arrested and taken before a court martial on allegations of theft of fuel.

The retired colonel said particulars of the charge were that he had on various occasions drawn army fuel, either diesel or petrol for his personal use without permission from his superiors.

However, when he appeared in court, witness statements were produced confirming he had authority to draw fuel and that the fuel drawn was used for military duties, leading to his acquittal.

Piki said despite his superiors having knowledge he had been authorised to draw fuel, they persisted in having him charged and prosecuted, and clearly showing they had malicious motives against him.

“There was also proof that the commandant had given his consent to the drawing of fuel by the plaintiff (Piki). The noble thing for the defendants (Defence minister and deputy secretary for Defence) to do was to decline prosecution, but defendants, because of their malicious motives, insisted on the prosecution of the plaintiff,” he said in his declaration.

“The plaintiff was eventually discharged at the close of the State case. The judging panel held that defendants failed to prove a prima facie case against the plaintiff.

“Plaintiff’s prosecution was driven by malice and this resulted in plaintiff suffering financial loss in terms of money, which he paid to legal practitioners. Plaintiff also suffered, as he was labelled a thief, something that affected his self-esteem and social standing.”

The former soldier also said he was urging the court to rule in his favour and order payment of $175 000 in damages for malicious prosecution, pain, suffering and detention.