Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has opened the door for the State to challenge the acquittal of Gerald Rutizira, granting the Prosecutor-General leave to appeal against a regional magistrate’s decision that cleared him of a money laundering charge linked to a dramatic armed cash-in-transit heist.
Justice Rogers Manyangadze ruled that the State had established sufficient grounds to argue that the trial court may have taken a view of the facts that could not reasonably be entertained when it acquitted Rutizira.
The case traces back to the early hours of January 6 2021, when a cash-in-transit vehicle carrying US$2 775 000 belonging to ZB Bank was ambushed along the Harare-Chirundu highway.
The attack, involving firearms, left investigators following a trail of stolen cash, suspicion and unanswered questions.
Days later, between January 6 and 8 2021, police arrested Rutizira and found him in possession of US$96 100 in cash. He had also recently acquired a Toyota Hiace commuter omnibus.
The discovery became the foundation of a separate money laundering charge against him.
But after the State closed its case, the regional magistrate acquitted Rutizira on both the robbery and money laundering charges.
The State returned to the High Court, arguing that the acquittal on the money laundering count was unreasonable and seeking permission to appeal.
At the centre of the dispute was one question: could a person found with nearly US$100 000 in cash, hidden away in a wardrobe, provide a satisfactory explanation for its origin?
Judge Manyangadze found that the magistrate had approached the money laundering charge through the lens of the robbery allegation, rather than examining it as a separate offence with its own elements.
“The facts on which it (money laundering) is predicated must be viewed against that charge,” the judge said.
The judge rejected the argument that Rutizira’s acquittal on robbery automatically extinguished the money laundering case.
“Money laundering has been preferred against the accused as a distinct and separate charge. The essential elements for robbery and money laundering are different,” he held.
The court noted that US$96 000 in cash was not an ordinary sum of money and that the circumstances surrounding its discovery demanded an explanation.
“US$96 000,00, in cash, is a huge amount of money. It was stashed in a wardrobe. There must be a satisfactory explanation for its acquisition,” Justice Manyangadze observed.
Rutizira had explained that he earned the money through his car sales business and activities connected to a housing co-operative where he was chairman.
However, the judge found that the explanation was not supported by documentary evidence.
“No, not even a single receipt or invoice was placed before the court to substantiate this explanation,” the judge said.
The court questioned the suggestion that all business records had disappeared with an impounded vehicle, describing it as difficult to accept that an entire business history would have been kept in one place.
“It is inconceivable all his business transactions went with that vehicle,” Justice Manyangadze remarked.
The State argued that the cash, the manner in which it was stored and the lack of evidence showing a legitimate source pointed towards proceeds of crime.
The defence maintained that the State had failed to prove the money laundering charge beyond reasonable doubt.
But the High Court was not deciding whether Rutizira was guilty or innocent. Its task was narrower: to determine whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success.
“The court is not presiding over the appeal in question,” the judge cautioned. “It is only considering the prospects of success in light of the applicable test as laid down by law.”
The court relied on the principle that a State appeal may succeed where a trial court has adopted a view of the facts that no reasonable court could have reached.
Referring to the earlier decision in Attorney General v Paweni Trade Corp (Pvt) Ltd, the judge noted that an acquittal can only be attacked where the inference of innocence is impossible to sustain when measured against the evidence.
In granting leave to appeal, Justice Manyangadze concluded that the State had a legitimate basis to challenge the acquittal.
“In the circumstances, the State cannot be faulted for seeking leave to appeal against the accused’s acquittal,” he ruled.
The High Court ordered the Prosecutor-General to file the notice of appeal within 10 days.
The ruling does not decide Rutizira’s ultimate fate.
Instead, it places the money-laundering question before the appellate court, where the competing narratives — a legitimate businessman explaining a large cash holding or unexplained wealth linked to a major robbery — will face further scrutiny.
