Gono Can No Longer Mislead the Nation

The public statement showed: (i) Funds "disbursed" and not yet refunded under unknown conditions: US$1,158,192,368.85

(ii) Forex "availed" to parastatals under unknown conditions: US$2,064,200,000

(iii) Private sector forex "beneficiaries" under unknown conditions: US$13,700,000

(iv) 50 second hand motor vehicles "loaned" to MPs: no value given (When were they procured and purpose?)

(v) Agricultural mechanization equipment distributed: no value given

(vi) 292 motor vehicles distributed to various institutions in 2006: no value given

(vii) 1058 motor vehicles distributed to various institutions in 2007-2008: no value given

(viii) Motor vehicles PROCURED to various institutions in 2006-2008: no figures and value given

(ix) Computers and office equipment allocated: no value given (When were they procured?)

Having read the public statement, one wishes to probe deeply the following:

1. If the RBZ had so much money all these years, why did it not make it available to the Ministry of Finance for accountable allocation, with adequate checks and balances?

2. The RBZ has not been capitalized to the tune of US$3,236,092,368.85 (US$3,2 billion), which is the amount shown in the public statement. How did it finance all these operations?

3. How much was received in total and where did it come from? How much of this was from its own internal revenues, exports, expropriations of FCAs, loans? If part of it is borrowed, did External Loans Coordinating Committee (ELCC) preside over these?

4. The role of distribution of public resources to both the public and private sectors is not that of the RBZ. Why h is trying to create a role for himself outside his mandate?

5. In an earlier statement to parliamentarians, he used the term "Point Institution." a. Under what legal provisions or public policy is this defined and mandate given? b. Which other public institution can be a "Point Institution"? c. What public accountability; and checks and balances are there for this so called "Point Institution"?

6. Why is the RBZ subverting the role of Ministry of Finance and CMED? This is a fiscal responsibility, right? Why is he so keen to perform duties that are not his?

7. If the RBZ had the ingenuity to raise so much money, where is its ability to do so when it is failing to pay its employees?

8. What is the total amount that the RBZ owes to suppliers and whose accounts it expropriated?

No where has said anything about the state of the government in general or the Ministry of Finance in particular to raise funds through taxes and other means during the period of his tenure as the Governor.

The Minister of Finance should not be swayed or intimidated by Gono’s antics of raising emotions of those who benefitted from his "Father Christmas" behaviour.

All what the Minister of Finance should insist and presumably insisted is that Gono should collect all what RBZ is owed so that he can pay the RBZ suppliers of goods and services; and repay the forex to the owners of the FCAs whose accounts he raided.

Because he is not able to raise the money required to settle RBZ creditors, he is childishly misleading the nation that the MInister of Finance is requesting beneficiaries of all his programmes to surrender back what they received.

Anything short of that of the repayments, RBZ creditors and owners of the forex he expropriated should individually or collectively seek legal recourse.

These MPs will then realize that it is not the Minister of Finance’s worry at all neither he has set himself against them. Biti should just fold his arms and keep his mouth shut.

The RBZ creditors do not need the Finance Minister’s assistance to claim what belongs to them.

He expropriated forex, lent money and gave away motor vehicles outside legal provisions and public policy. He should be the one to be burdened by recalling them and collecting whatever is owed to the RBZ.

He should either do so himself or engage a debt collecting agency.

That is not the problem or worry of the Ministry of Finance. Have a good working day and enjoy your sleep! Be reminded that there are a number of ZANU PF MPs who benefitted from his "bags" and election campaign funding and have taken upon themselves to be his spokespeople and public defenders.

Amongst the ZANU PF MPs defenders of Gono are the two most visible MPs, Makhosini Hlongwane and Edward Raradza.

Hlongwane the MP for Mberengwa East is a former reporter with ZBC, who has been working for a company allegedly owned by Emmerson Mnangagwa and last year he was allegedly received a lot of money from Gono to mobilize the youth.

He was well sponsored to beat Rugare Gumbo in the ZANU PF primary elections under a project by Gono to change the ZANU PF power base in his favour through the young ones and those aligned to him through quasi-fiscal oriented patronage.

Raradza, the MP for Muzarabani South and Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU) Vice President, and his companies called "Farmers World Holdings" and "Zimbabwe Farmer Development Company" where heavily involved in the procurement of the agricultural mechanization equipment under the spolight.

In June 2008 he was reported as the Chairperson and major stakeholder of an obscure "Zambesi Gas Zimbabwe Consortium" formed to exploit the Entuba coalfield, near Hwange, in the north-east of Zimbabwe, after the failure of its initial project to set up a gas plant in the same area.

Raradza was also the architect of a reign of terror and orgy of violence linked to ZANU PF that swept through Muzarabani (more than 400 kilometers outside Harare near the Mozambican border) before the run-up June 2008 election.

The dubious meetings by the so called "Parliamentarian Welfare Committee" should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

We will not be swayed by the massive misinformation trough the Herald and ZTV news. The more the noise Gono and his defenders are making in the name of propaganda, the more those whom he owes are irritated.

Gono should not divert attention to the Finance Minister when it is his problem to deal with.

Fact 1. The RBZ owes some companies, people and organizations in forex.

Fact 2. The RBZ has limited time to settle the liabilities.

Fact 3. He should be working on ways and means of raising funds to repay the money he owes.

Fact 4. The RBZ has debtors.

Fact 5. The RBZ should be working on ways and means of receiving money from its debtors.

Fact 6. The RBZ faces a serious litigation over its creditors and other liabilities.

Fact 7. Gono has no means of stopping the legal stunami brewing for what the RBZ owes.

Levi Mhaka, Harare Previous and more articles are found on www.levi-mhaka.blogspot.com