By Desmond Chingarande
Dynamos Football Club chairperson Bernard Marriot Lusengo, who is being accused of fraud after allotting himself 51% shareholding of the popular club, has indicated he wants to approach the Constitutional Court for recourse.
Lusengo, whose lawyer Hebert Mutasa was barred from representing him, has since hired prominent advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara to fight for the reinstatement of his lawyer.
Zhuwarara said he would file the written court application by October 5 challenging the removal of Mutasa from representing Lusengo.
The application followed last week’s ruling by magistrate Barbara Mateko that Mutasa was conflicted as he had represented the club at the time the offence was allegedly committed.
Prosecutor Tapiwanashe Zvidzai consented to respond by October 12 and on October 15, there will be oral submissions.
Lusengo is being accused of fraudulently allotting himself 51% shareholding without a board resolution.
Mutasa is said to have played a role in the distribution of shares without a board resolution.
The prosecutor said in 2010, Dynamos Football Club through its management held a meeting to look into the share allotment issue and approached a law firm where Mutasa is a partner.
He further said Mutasa was then nominated to represent the club.
Magistrate Mateko ruled in favour of the State.
The complainant is Dynamos Pvt Limited represented by Robinson Rundaba, head of directors at the company. Lusengo is one of the directors.
It is alleged that sometime in 2008, Dynamos Pvt Ltd’s subsisting articles of association was replaced through a special resolution.
The net effect of the articles of association was to allocate shares to people who were active members of the club between 1963 and 1968.
This was in accordance with the recommendations of the Sports and Recreation Commission. A three-member committee was set up to look into the issue of allocation, payment, distribution and issuing of share certificates.
The committee consisted of Rundaba, Lusengo and Casper Muzenda.
However, the committee never met to deliberate on the allocated task and the allocation of shares and issuance of certificates was not done.
The issue was never revisited, but the agreement on allocation of shares for beneficiaries still stands.
Sometime in 2019, Rundaba received a call from one Chitambo of Sakunda Holdings advising him that Lusengo had approached their company seeking sponsorship for Dynamos FC and that he was claiming to be the sole owner of the club.
Rundaba allegedly then convened a meeting with Chitambo in the company of Simon Sachiti and one Nyamandwe in which Chitambo claimed that Lusengo had retracted his earlier claim and was now saying he owned 51% of the company shares.
Lusengo’s claim to Sakunda Holdings that he was the sole owner of the company prompted Rundaba to make a police report.
Investigations revealed that Lusengo had awarded himself majority shareholding in the club without the knowledge or approval of Rundaba.
The State alleges that Lusengo’s conduct could cause a potential prejudice of 51% shares to Dynamos. The CR14, CR2 and articles of association for Dynamos will be produced in court as exhibits.
Follow Desmond on Twitter @DChingarande1