Judge Laughs Off ‘Unborn Kids’ Demand as Chief Murinye and Riverton Academy Bitter Fight Rages On!
Masvingo traditional leader Chief Murinye has been acquitted of extortion charges arising from his bitter dispute with businessman and educationist Philemon Mutangiri over the construction and operation of Riverton Academy in the Murinye area.
The chief, born Ephias Munodawafa, was freed by Masvingo regional magistrate Innocent Bepura at the close of the State case after the court upheld an application for discharge brought by his lawyer, Admire Rubaya.
The decision brings the criminal case to an end, but it does not close the wider dispute surrounding the school, its land, its approvals and the authority of traditional leaders over development in communal areas.
At the centre of the extortion case were allegations that Chief Murinye demanded that Mutangiri electrify his homestead and extend electricity from the businessman’s fields towards Boroma Dam. Prosecutors also alleged that the traditional leader wanted all his children enrolled at Riverton Academy free of charge and sought a written guarantee that they would receive free education indefinitely.
The allegations went further. The State’s case included the claim that the guarantee was intended to cover children who had not yet been born, an allegation the defence described as “laughable”.
Chief Murinye denied the allegations throughout the proceedings. Through Rubaya, he maintained that the criminal complaint was not about extortion but was an attempt to silence him after he questioned the legality of the school’s construction and the manner in which the land had been acquired.
The State, led by prosecutor Romeo Zibani, alleged that the chief had invited Mutangiri to a meeting and made the demands there. Prosecutors further alleged that, on January 11, Chief Murinye and Solomon Mukamwe blocked a school bus carrying pupils to Riverton Academy at the Topora-Rukovo Secondary School turn-off and again near the academy.
According to the State’s case, a grey Isuzu twin cab without registration plates and a Nissan Vanette were used during the incidents in an attempt to pressure Mutangiri into meeting the alleged demands.
The court was asked to consider the alleged road blockade as an alternative basis for putting the chief on his defence after the State faced difficulty proceeding with the extortion charge. Zibani proposed that Chief Murinye could instead be placed on his defence for disorderly conduct arising from the alleged obstruction of the road leading to the school.
The court rejected that proposal. It found that disorderly conduct had not been charged as an alternative offence from the outset and was not a competent verdict on the extortion charge. The magistrate subsequently upheld the defence application and acquitted the traditional leader.
Rubaya told the court that the dispute had its roots in a collective decision by traditional leaders in the area. He said the chief, Headman Clemence Mukamwi and Village Head Marko Machingura had concluded that construction should continue only after the project had complied fully with Zimbabwean law.
“The complainant is seeking to persecute the accused person through abuse of the criminal justice system because the accused, as a traditional leader who presides over a community court known as Chief Murinye’s court, made a collective decision together with Headman Clemence Mukamwi and Village Head Marko Machingura that the school ought only to continue being built in their area of jurisdiction after full compliance with due process of the laws of Zimbabwe,” Rubaya submitted.
“It is clear that the real issue related to whether the complainant built the school in question in full compliance with the law or not,” Rubaya argued.
“In the circumstances, it can easily be concluded, and rightfully so, that the complaint and the allegations, weak as they are, are purely simulated and have been made solely to harass the accused person for exposing underhand and shady dealings by the complainant regarding State land.”
The chief also rejected the allegation that Mutangiri had connected electricity to his residence. The defence said the homestead relied on solar power instead.
“The accused denies that the complainant connected any electricity at his place of residence since he uses solar power at his house.
“The complainant is only grandstanding, seeking to look for fame using the accused’s name,” the defence submitted.
Rubaya also challenged the State to show what threats had allegedly been made against Mutangiri and what benefit the businessman had given Chief Murinye as a result of the alleged demands.
The acquittal follows months of confrontation that began publicly when the school opened at the start of the year. Riverton Academy Murinye is located at Machingura Village, about 65km south-east of Masvingo City, in the Murinye communal lands.
The school opened with an initial enrolment of 180 boarding pupils. It was presented as part of Mutangiri’s effort to expand access to private education in rural communities. Mutangiri, a teacher by profession, also runs Riverton Academy at Riverton Farm in Bikita and Riverton Westview on the western outskirts of Masvingo City.
The Murinye campus occupies about 2.5 hectares and was built on land Mutangiri said belonged to his family. The businessman said he had received permission from local village heads, while Chief Murinye questioned whether the project had gone through the required development and administrative processes before construction began.
The disagreement became impossible to ignore when access to the school was blocked during the first days of the new term. Parents taking their children to the academy were caught in long queues after a truck was used to obstruct the gravel road leading to the institution. Police later intervened and ordered that access be restored.
The standoff prompted a Government meeting involving the parties and Masvingo Minister of State for Provincial Affairs and Devolution Ezra Chadzamira. The school was allowed to remain open while its owners worked to regularise its documentation.
Authorities said the institution could operate as a satellite school under the licence of another school in the Riverton group while the registration process continued. At the time, about 30 of the 180 boarding pupils were local children benefiting from flexible payment terms described as part of the school’s community reinvestment.
The dispute then moved beyond the road and into the courts. Mutangiri obtained a provisional High Court order barring Chief Murinye from interfering with the school’s operations or blocking parents and pupils from accessing it.
After that order, the chief summoned Mutangiri to appear before his community court over allegations that the school had been built on sacred land and that the businessman had uttered words undermining the chief’s authority. Mutangiri challenged the summons, arguing that the chief had a personal interest in the dispute and could not act as both complainant and judicial officer.
“My view is that the Chief seeks, by the summons he issued, to undercut and undermine the process in HCMSC 14/26, and such cannot be countenanced by this court. In seeking to determine, in his community court, the very issue that is pending determination in this court, the Chief acted outside the requirements of the law,” the judge ruled.
The judge also rejected the argument that customary law allowed the chief to hear the matter himself. The ruling said customary law remained subject to constitutional protections requiring a fair hearing before an impartial court.
“In terms of section 69(2) of the Constitution, the applicant has a right to a fair hearing before an impartial court. In casu, the Chief is the complainant and judicial officer in the same matter,” the judge said.
“The nemo judex in sua causa principle applies with force in this case; no one is permitted to be adjudicator in his own case.”
The High Court further criticised the decision to continue with the community court hearing after the chief had been served with the application challenging the summons. It nullified the proceedings and ordered Chief Murinye to pay the ordinary costs of the application.
The latest ruling is separate from the High Court proceedings. It dealt with whether the State had presented sufficient evidence to require the chief to answer the extortion allegations, not with the outstanding questions over the school’s planning approvals or the acquisition of the land.
Those questions have remained central to Chief Murinye’s position. His defence argued that the criminal case diverted attention from the school’s establishment and the alleged absence of council approval, building plans and a development permit. Mutangiri, for his part, has maintained that the school was established to provide better educational opportunities for children in the area and that local communities supported the project.
The conflict has therefore drawn together several competing interests: the need for rural children to access education, the responsibility of school developers to obtain the required approvals, the role of traditional leaders in community affairs and the limits of customary authority when disputes reach formal courts.
For the moment, the extortion case has ended with Chief Murinye’s acquittal. The claims that he demanded electricity and free, indefinite education for his children were not sufficient to send him to his defence, while the State’s attempt to rely on an alternative disorderly-conduct allegation was rejected by the court.
The school remains at the centre of the disagreement. Its pupils have continued to attend classes, its owners have been expected to regularise its paperwork, and the traditional leader has continued to challenge what he regards as an unlawful development in his jurisdiction.
The criminal proceedings may now be over, but the arguments that brought Chief Murinye and Mutangiri into conflict — over land, permits, customary authority and the future of Riverton Academy — remain part of the unresolved story in Murinye.