IT WAS A SEX FOR CASH DEAL GONE WRONG

The two men accused of raping Mai Jeremaya claim one of them struck a deal with the social media star for them to have sex at a lodge in Eastlea, Harare, and the two parties only fell out over a disagreement of how much she should be paid.

Thabo Blessing Dube 27, and Martin Charlie, 25, were arrested at the weekend and appeared in court on Monday charged with rape.

Mai Jeremaya, a very popular social media star, waived her rights to anonymity when she posted a video on social media narrating her claims that she was raped by the duo.

She has received tremendous support from scores of women, including social media stars like Mai TT.

The State did not oppose the bail bid by Dube and Charlie, which was challenged by the magistrate, who ordered the State to justify why it was not opposing bail.

Yesterday, the State filed its response ahead of a ruling by magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa today.

The State also outlined the defence which was proffered by the duo during vetting.

The two denied raping Mai Jeremaya.

In their submissions, they claimed Dube acted as an intermediary to facilitate a meeting between Mai Jeremaya and Charlie.

Charlie and Mai Jeremaya, according to their submission by the accused, met at Joina City in the Harare CBD and agreed to engage in sexual intercourse for a fee of US$20.

The accused claim the two then went to a lodge in Eastlea, where Charlie had consensual sexual intercourse with Mai Jeremaya.

The two claim that Mai Jeremaya was aware, throughout this period, that their presence at that lodge was for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse, in return for an agreed fee.

They claim she even witnessed the facilitation and payment for the accommodation offered at the lodge.

They claim she removed her clothes, kissed and had sexual intercourse with Charlie.

Dube claims he did not engage in any sexual intercourse with Mai Jeremaya, something which she is claiming.

The two claim Mai Jeremaya demanded that she should be paid USS$500 and not the US$20 which Charlie offered.

After the sexual act, according to the two, Mai Jeremaya even took a shower, took the US$20 she was offered by Charlie and was accompanied to a taxi by the duo.

Two days later, the two claim she dispatched a private investigator Tafadzwa “Detective Kedha” Chidawa as part of a criminal mission to allegedly extort funds from the duo.

It is claimed that Chidawa located the duo and took them to Mayambara in Seke.

When the parties refused to pay the money, a decision was then made to make a report of rape.

The two claim that the rape report was only made after they refused to pay any amount.

In its submissions filed yesterday, the State justified its consent to bail and said it had no compelling reasons to warrant the pre-trial detention of the two suspects.

Magistrate Gofa rejected the consent and questioned why the duo wasn’t also charged with aggravated indecent assault as they are alleged to have forced the complainant to give them blow jobs.

The State agreed that the court raised important issues and submitted that the facts suggest that charges of aggravated indecent assault could have been preferred against the accused.

“It is, however, submitted that considering that the acts constituting aggravated indecent assault appear to have taken place in a single transaction with those acts constituting rape.

“It also appears that the dominant intention was rape.

“It is also worth noting that the same evidence will be used to prove the acts constituting rape and those constituting aggravated indecent assault.

“In the result, charging the accused with both rape and aggravated indecent assault may be an unnecessary splitting of charges.”

The State said there were no compelling reasons to refuse the duo bail.

“It is the State’s view that such forceful and convincing reasons, which will make the court feel very strongly that the accused should not be released on bail, do not exist.

“The State does not have any well-founded fears that if released on bail, the two will abscond and not attend their trial, they are of fixed abode shown by their residential addresses on the face of the Request for Remand form.

“They do not have any known previous convictions or pending cases before the criminal courts and they did not exhibit any conduct from which any inclination to abscond can be inferred.

”The State is satisfied that the accused persons are sufficiently tied to the jurisdiction of the court and  may be ordered to surrender their passports.” H Metro