admin
Yeukai Karengezeka
Court Correspondent
The trial of suspected hit men based in South Africa who were allegedly hired to kidnap and assault a local businessman who was defrauded of US$800 000 in a botched gas tanks deal has continued with a digital forensic examiner giving evidence.
The case involves Moses Monde of Johannesburg, Malvin Manzinde, Malvin Tatenda Nyamuranga, Norbert Muponda and Joshua Mapuranga, who are charged with assault and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
The complainant in the matter is Mr Oliver Tendai Chipindu and the mastermind of the plot is Obrian Mapurisa who is still on the run.
The digital forensic examiner, Mr Overson Admire Tinashe Sosa who is stationed at the Criminal Investigations Department Cyber Laboratory testified that he is the one who examined one of the cell phones confiscated from the accused persons upon their arrest.
The investigation began when the accused individuals communicated via cell phones from February 27 to March 10, 2024.
Mr Sosa’s task was to retrieve WhatsApp messages, text messages, call logs, and audios from the exhibit, specifically those sent by Mapurisa using the South African number +27788532189.
He examined a Hisense U40 phone with IMEI 867173044876503 and a Cell C SIM card.
Using the UFED Cellebrite Forensic tool, he extracted text messages and call logs, but WhatsApp messages and audios required manual examination due to compatibility issues.
He added that the manual examination revealed a WhatsApp account registered with the username Makaveli and contact number +27651102019.
Further analysis showed conversations related to the assassination plot, including audios, messages and pictures.
Mr Sosa’s expert opinion confirms that the retrieved information was extracted from the exhibit, providing crucial evidence in the case.
The State applied for tendering of documents containing information that they retrieved from the phone and the defence lawyer Mr Moffat Makuvatsine objected.
“That soft copy was not served upon the accused persons and investigating officer didn’t tell how he ended up with the hard copy.
“We were not afforded a chance to compare soft copies and printed copies to see if there were changes. It’s prejudicial on the part of the accused persons,” he said.
However, presiding magistrate Mr Stanford Mambanje admitted them into the record saying their relevance will be considered when making a judgement in the matter.
Mr Sosa also confirmed that the content that is on the hard copy tendered was the same as the one that was on the soft copy that was handed over to the investigating officer Detective Assistant Inspector Tirivangani Madhibha upon completion of his task.
The trial continues on October 28.
Online Reporter