Court Convicts Former Medical Council Registrar for Perjury, Reinforcing Limits of Institutional Authority

A Harare magistrate has convicted former MDPCZ registrar Dr Collin Benyure of perjury (image source)

HARARE — A Harare magistrate has convicted former Registrar of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (MDPCZ), Dr Collin Benyure, of perjury, in a ruling that underscores the legal limits of institutional authority and the obligations of witnesses under oath.

Dr Benyure (64) was found guilty of contravening Section 183 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], which criminalises the making of false statements under oath during judicial proceedings. He is expected to be sentenced today.

The conviction stems from testimony Dr Benyure gave on 22 May 2024 while appearing as a defence witness in a separate criminal case involving allegations of cyber bullying. During that testimony, he stated under oath that he had authority to represent and speak on behalf of the MDPCZ. The State later challenged that assertion, arguing that no formal council resolution existed authorising him to testify on the council’s behalf.

During the perjury trial, prosecutors produced documentary evidence from the MDPCZ confirming that no such authority had been granted. In delivering judgment, Magistrate Donald Ndirowei ruled that the State had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. He held that statutory bodies, as juristic persons, can only act through formally authorised resolutions, and that holding a senior administrative position does not automatically confer authority to represent an institution in court. “The claim of inherent authority based solely on office is legally indefensible,” the magistrate ruled.

Evidence presented showed that the original matter arose from a complaint lodged in 2023 by Dr Andrew Mataruse, who reported alleged cyber bullying. The case was investigated by the CID Commercial Crimes Division (Northern Region), leading to the arrest and prosecution of Lenon Tonderai Gwaunza. When Dr Benyure testified in that matter, he stated during cross-examination that he was appearing on behalf of the MDPCZ.

The issue was subsequently reported to police, prompting investigations into the accuracy of that claim. Police requested a council resolution authorising Dr Benyure’s representation. In a response dated 6 February 2025, the MDPCZ confirmed that it had not passed any resolution authorising him, even in his capacity as Acting Registrar, to testify as a defence witness in the case.

The court accepted the State’s argument that Dr Benyure knowingly misled the court, citing his experience, seniority and familiarity with governance procedures applicable to statutory bodies.

Legal analysts say the ruling has broader implications for governance and accountability within professional councils and public institutions. It reinforces the principle that institutional authority must be explicit, documented and procedurally sound, particularly in judicial proceedings. For professionals who regularly engage with the courts, the judgment serves as a reminder that accuracy under oath is both a legal and ethical obligation, regardless of past office or institutional standing.