Africa-Press – Rwanda. Prosecutors, on Wednesday, August 27, arraigned Omar Munyaneza, the former CEO of Water and Sanitation Corporation (WASAC) along with his Executive Assistant Dieudonné Mungwakuzwe, before the primary court of Nyarugenge on corruption-related charges.
According to the file, Munyaneza is accused of using powers granted by law for personal gain, making decisions based on favouritism, friendship, or nepotism, and being an accomplice in demanding or accepting undue payments.
Mungwakuzwe, meanwhile, faces charges of demanding or accepting undue payments. Both defendants pleaded not guilty and requested bail while awaiting trial.
The prosecutors alleged that Munyaneza committed the crimes during his tenure as WASAC Group CEO between 2023 until July this year. They claimed he abused his authority in recruitment, promotions, dismissals, and early retirements.
One key allegation concerns Mungwakuzwe’s appointment. Prosecutors said Munyaneza recruited him directly from parliament, granting him a position and a salary well above his rank.
While his role should have been at the level of a department head, he was paid as a manager, leading to an alleged overpayment of more than Rwf 20 million in just 11 months.
The prosecutors also accused Munyaneza of hiring fresh university graduates outside normal recruitment procedures and overseeing the hiring of 45 employees whose examinations were reportedly organised by his family members and friends.
Additionally, he allegedly created a position for a family member as a “messenger,” a post not recognized under WASAC’s policy.
Furthermore, prosecutors argued that Munyaneza forced four employees into early retirement under the pretext of creating space for young professionals. Witness accounts and call logs were mentioned in support of this claim.
The prosecutors also cited WhatsApp messages between Munyaneza and WASAC’s HR director, where he allegedly proposed Mungwakuzwe for the role of Executive Director, as evidence of undue influence in the recruitment process.
Defence arguments
Munyaneza rejected all accusations, insisting that his actions were lawful and consistent with WASAC’s internal practices. He argued that all hires went through recruitment committees and were approved by WASAC shareholders.
On the alleged irregular salary for Mungwakuzwe, Munyaneza said he had no role in drafting contracts and that the remuneration was based on new statutes approved by WASAC shareholders.
Regarding the recruitment of the 45 employees, he claimed shareholders initiated the process, but for four staff designated for WASAC group stalled due to flaws in execution, leaving him with no final responsibility.
Munyaneza further defended the hiring of university graduates, saying it was a long-standing institutional practice dating back to WASAC’s predecessor, Electrogaz, and had produced excellent results, including the corporation’s current CEO, who was once recruited through the same system.
He also denied forcing employees into retirement, claiming those who left did so voluntarily under legal provisions, and pointed out that many older staff members remained employed.
On the controversial “messenger” and “Executive assistant” position, Munyaneza said it was part of essential staffing needs identified when WASAC transitioned into a group structure.
He maintained that the recruitment followed a “head-hunting” process permitted under HR policy. However, he explained that the headhunting process initially suggested for Mungwakuzwe and the messenger was never applied.
Instead, another recruitment method was used, during which Mungwakuzwe once again scored highly and secured the position, while the messenger role was also defended as part of the institution’s established practice.
Mungwakuzwe, for his part, distanced himself from the charges, saying he had no role in setting his salary or influencing recruitment procedures. “My position was the first of its kind in the institution. I signed a contract provided by the HR department and had no involvement in determining pay scales,” he told the court.
Both defendants applied for bail. Munyaneza’s legal team presented surety worth over Rwf 65 million, while Mungwakuzwe’s lawyers highlighted personal circumstances, including the recent birth of his child, arguing he needed to care for his wife and new-born.
They also insisted that both defendants had been cooperating with investigators even before their detention, showing no intention of evading justice.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Nyarugenge Primary Court scheduled its ruling on September 3.
For More News And Analysis About Rwanda Follow Africa-Press
