By Staff Reporter
MINES permanent secretary Francis Gudyanga this Wednesday escaped being slapped with contempt of parliament by a whisker after he dared the mines committee chairperson to recuse himself on grounds of conflict of interest.
Gudyanga, who was appearing before the committee to answer to multiple allegations of abuse of office, said he would not answer to questions on the operations of Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company (ZCDC) until the chair recused self.
The committee alleges that Gudyanga unjustifiably dismissed the evaluators who were working in the Marange fields only to replace them with his friends at a higher cost in return for kickbacks.
“One company was providing services to Marange, we had issues with it and you chairman you are one of the principal directors of that company and it’s a matter that I feel you presiding puts me in a difficult position. I would expect you to recuse yourself,” said Gudyanga.
A fuming Shumba accused Gudyanga of constantly trying to annoy the committee each time he appears. While admitting Marange still owed his company, he emphasized that his questions were impersonal as he had since stopped providing services to Marange.
“I have never dealt with Marange since 2012 and I was elected to this house in 2013. I may find him in contempt of parliament because of his fugitive avoidance of the question. I declared everything to parliament. Unless I was providing the service today,” responded Shumba.
“I have asked him a question on the company he appointed, for which it is alleged he is getting a commission, he did not go to tender. He should not come here to play games with this committee.”
Legislator John Holder had to mediate demanding that Gudyanga sticks to questions asked and stop reducing the sitting into a personal clash.
Gudyanga then described his dealings with an agriculture firm, Pedstock, used as a conduit to pay South Africa’s Glamel for border control services from MMCZ funds where he is the sole board member as security matters which cannot be shared with parliament.
It is the committee’s case that the secretary used part of the funds to bankroll the installation of irrigation equipment at his farm.
The parliamentarians based their assumptions on the un-procedural nature in which the funds were handled and the fact that the transaction coincided with the installation of the equipment at the farm.
Also, his evidence contradicted Pedstock’s narrative which claimed that Gudyanga had paid for the $50 000 worth of service in cash.