Former Zanu PF official Psychology Maziwisa is now doing jail time over USD 12 650 tender fraud case.
Authorities have been hunting the former ruling party darling after he failed to submit himself to the courts to go and serve 30 months in prison.
His partner in crime Oscar Pambuka is already serving two and half years jail term, which was later suspended after he cooperated and and the court considered that he did not financially benefit from the scams.
Pambuka and Maziwisa(left) had been roaming free for the past four months instead of serving their jail terms after their latest appeal bid was rejected.
Maziwisa was committed to jail after he was arrested at the High Court last week where he wanted to note yet another appeal.
He was then taken to Harare Magistrates Court where he appeared before magistrate Mr Stanford Mambanje who formally committed him to prison.
Maziwisa and Pambuka were fraudulently awarded a tender to do public relations work for Zesa Holdings by former Energy Minister Samuel Undenge at a time the power utility had its own functional public relations department.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the two appealed to the High Court against both conviction and sentence, but that court struck the appeal off the roll on the basis that it was fatally defective and incurable at law.
Circumstances leading to their conviction are that in 2016, the ZBC advertised that ZPC would be on the ZimAsset Media Campaign from 15 January to 15 February 2016.
The company held a media conference on ZPC power projects at Kariba, Hwange and Batoka Gorge and this was covered on the news bulletins on Power FM, Radio Zimbabwe and National FM on January 17 2016.
The following day, the event was aired on Power Talk and Power FM.
ZPC also wanted coverage on the current affairs programme on National FM on January 29, 2016, and coverage on ZimAsset on Energy and Infrastructure Development on Power Talk on Power FM on February 15 2016.
Subsequent to the coverage, on March 8 2016, Pambuka and Maziwisa submitted an invoice to the ZPC for the payment of US$12 650, which they said was for coverage on ZBC.
ZPC paid the money despite the two knowing that ZBC had covered the activities for no payment.
On the second count, the two claimed US$36 000 ostensibly for similar services that were rendered to ZPC.
ZPC did not pay the US$36 000, as it first investigated whether there was a debt to pay in the first place and found there was not, and that the initial bill of US$12 650 was also for a non-existent debt.
