Magistrate
Richard Ramaboea ruled that the State had failed to prove its case, describing
key evidence as contradictory and unreliable.
Ndlovu, who had
been jointly charged with Ward 26 councillor and Finance and Development
Committee chairperson Mpumelelo Moyo, said he was relieved by the acquittal.
“I feel a bit
relieved. This is time to go back to do my duties as mandated by residents of
Bulawayo,” said the deputy mayor in a brief interview with CITE outside court,
standing with his lawyer, Zibusiso Ncube of Ncube and Partners.
Ndlovu declined
to speak further, noting that his co-accused, Moyo, who is out on bail and not
yet free, is due to present his defence later this month.
Prosecutors
alleged that Ndlovu and Moyo solicited the bribe from Labenmon Investments in
exchange for facilitating the approval of a 5.6-hectare piece of land in
Cowdray Park.
The State
relied heavily on the testimony of company representative Tsitsi Mapfumo and on
forensic handwriting analysis linking Ndlovu to a disputed document, referred
to as Exhibit 5, which allegedly listed 20 councillors who were to receive US$1
000 each.
The Zimbabwe
Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) mounted a sting operation in 2024, leading to
the arrest of the two councillors at Mapfumo’s home.
However,
Magistrate Ramaboea said cracks soon appeared in the State’s case, particularly
surrounding Exhibit 5 and the alleged handling of cash regarding Ndlovu’s
alleged involvement.
In a lengthy
judgment, Magistrate Ramaboea dismantled the State’s case against Ndlovum
citing the evidence of Mapfumo, who also used the name Tsitsi Nyathi, was
riddled with contradictions.
“Now Exhibit 5,
which is crucial to accused number two, is a letter from the same company. She
is listed there under Tsitsi Nyathi as director, being known as Tsitsi Mapfumo
or Tsitsi Nyathi. That itself is not a real issue because she explained that
the other surname is a remnant of her previous marriage.
“The real issue
is why did anyone draft a letter that tells a blatant lie? Or did she not draft
it? Why did she allow her name to be on it, telling a lie and moving around
with it?” the magistrate asked.
The magistrate
noted that Mapfumo admitted writing part of Exhibit 5, which falsely stated
that she had received US$20 000 from a business associate yet she could not
explain why she wrote such a statement.
Further
undermining the prosecution’s case, the investigating officer conceded under
oath that the so-called “trap money” was not US$20 000 but “US$20 and pieces of
paper.”
“I did not see
anything wrong or adverse about the investigating officer’s statements. I found
him to be a truthful and credible person. He even conceded issues that are
negative to the State’s case, such as using his own money as trap money,” the
magistrate said.
“Whether or not
the trap was properly authorised is not an issue, because entrapment is not a
defence in our law. In terms of Section 250 of the Criminal Law Codification
and Reform Act, unfair or undesirable entrapment methods are considered only as
factors during sentencing, not as a defence.”
Turning to the
forensic handwriting analysis that allegedly tied Ndlovu to the document,
Magistrate Ramaboea dismissed the expert’s testimony as inconsistent and
unreliable.
“He said it is
not true that Exhibit 5 was plotted by two persons. It is a document by one
person,” Ramaboea noted.
“This would
most probably be the case considering that he insisted categorically that the
document was written by one person. If that is so, should an expert be told
this or should he pick it up himself? Now, if he fails to pick it up himself,
what does it tell about the weight to be placed on this conclusion?”
Magistrate
Ramaboea also criticised prosecutors for defending “what cannot be defended.”
“I have
expected the State to concede that the questioned document examiner all but
came and exonerated the accused two. There is no harm in saying that because
that is the truth. While the prosecutor can have the luxury of deliberately
ignoring evidence that does not advance a conviction, the court cannot do so,”
he said.
In conclusion,
the magistrate ruled that the State had failed to produce independent, credible
evidence linking Ndlovu to the alleged offence. CITE
0 comments:
Post a Comment