A difficult day in court unfolded for Dr Collen Benyure, a senior medical practitioner and former registrar of a statutory council, after a Harare magistrate ruled that his account of events could not withstand scrutiny under the law.
Regional Magistrate Donald Ndirowei on Wednesday convicted Dr Benyure of perjury, finding that he had falsely told the court that he had authority to testify on behalf of the council he once served.
The court held that the claim was not supported by evidence and was directly contradicted by official records.
The conviction followed the production of a formal council resolution, which clearly showed that Dr Benyure had never been authorised to represent the institution in judicial proceedings.
In earlier testimony, the doctor had assured the court that he appeared in an official capacity. During the perjury trial, however, prosecutors tabled documentary evidence demonstrating that no such mandate had been given.
The case became a stark contrast between personal confidence and institutional procedure, with the court firmly siding with the latter.
In his ruling, Magistrate Ndirowei emphasised that statutory bodies, as juristic persons, can only act through properly authorised representatives. He held that professional status or seniority does not substitute for lawful authority, and that claims of representation must be supported by clear proof.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces a fundamental principle of justice: that honesty before the courts is not optional, regardless of one’s professional standing.
A senior legal practitioner, commenting after the verdict, said the case offered an important reminder of the standards expected of those who take the witness stand.
“Titles carry weight in the workplace, but in court only the truth carries authority. The justice system depends on accuracy, not assumption,” the practitioner said.
Dr Benyure was convicted under Section 183 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, which criminalises the making of false statements under oath. The offence carries a potential penalty of a Level Ten fine, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.
The law further provides that a statement may be false by omission as well as by commission, meaning that withholding the truth can be as serious as stating an untruth.
The doctor was remanded out of custody and is expected to return to court tomorrow for mitigation and sentencing, when the magistrate will determine an appropriate sentence in light of the seriousness of the offence and the professional responsibilities that accompanied his position.
As the case moves to its final stage, it stands as a clear reminder that in the courtroom, authority is earned through truth and not through title.
