Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
Jeffrey Moyo, a freelance journalist for the New York Times, failed in his final legal bid to overturn his conviction for facilitating the illegal entry of two foreign journalists into the country using fake accreditation documents.
The Supreme Court, sitting in Bulawayo, dismissed Moyo’s appeal last week.
The ruling upheld the lower courts’ findings that Moyo knowingly procured counterfeit press accreditation cards for his colleagues, enabling their entry into the country in May 2021.
The court, presided over by Justices Susan Mavangira, Tendai Uchena, and Samuel Kudya, found no merit in the eight grounds of appeal raised by Moyo’s legal team led by Ms Beatrice Mtetwa and Mr Douglas Coltart.
The judgment affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that Moyo was guilty of violating Zimbabwe’s Immigration Act, which prohibits fraudulent acts to facilitate entry into the country.
The case dates back to May 2021 when Moyo allegedly secured fake Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC) accreditation cards for New York Times journalists, Christina Goldbaum and Joao Da Costa Silva.
The cards were used to obtain seven-day business visas at Bulawayo’s Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo International Airport.
Immigration officials later discovered the documents were counterfeit, prompting the police to investigate.
- Related stories: https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/ny-times-correspondent-fined/
- https://www.heraldonline.co.zw/foreign-journalists-with-fake-accreditation-deported/
Moyo denied the charges at trial and remained silent in his defence. The prosecution presented evidence showing discrepancies in the accreditation cards and receipts, which ZMC officials testified were not issued by the commission.
The trial court found that the accreditation numbers were either previously assigned to other journalists or not yet issued, and the accompanying receipts bore irregular features inconsistent with official ZMC documents.
Moyo’s defence team argued that the prosecution relied on inadmissible hearsay, manipulated evidence and failed to produce primary documents, such as the original accreditation cards.
They also contended that the trial court misdirected itself by drawing adverse inferences from Moyo’s silence.
“The burden of proof was on the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had the intent to defraud,” Ms Mtetwa argued.
In delivering the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Uchena rejected these arguments.
The court ruled that the evidence presented by the State, including testimony from ZMC officials and immigration officers, was sufficient to support Moyo’s conviction.
It noted that Moyo’s refusal to testify left the evidence against him uncontested.
“If there is evidence calling for an answer and an accused person chooses to remain silent in the face of such evidence, a court may well be entitled to conclude that the evidence is sufficient in the absence of an explanation to prove the guilt of the accused,” Justice Uchena said.
The court also dismissed the defence’s claim that the accreditation cards may have been erased from ZMC records.
It ruled that the testimony of ZMC officials, who confirmed the cards were never issued, was credible and unshaken under cross-examination.
Justice Uchena further emphasised that the trial court was correct in admitting photographic copies of the documents as the best available evidence, given that the originals had been handed back to the deported journalists.
The State argued that Moyo’s actions demonstrated clear intent to defraud, as he knowingly facilitated the journalists’ entry into Zimbabwe using fake documents.
Prosecutor Mr K M Guveya said, “The appellant’s silence in the face of overwhelming circumstantial evidence was a costly strategic miscalculation.”
The Supreme Court found no misdirection in the lower courts’ handling of the case. It ruled that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Moyo’s guilt, and his appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Moyo’s conviction and sentence, a ZWL$200,000 fine and a 24-month suspended prison term, remain intact.
The prosecution of Moyo was in line with enforcing immigration laws, according to legal experts.
