Online Reporter
Peter Matika
A MULTI-MILLION dollar heist, a city on edge, and then — poof.
What began as Bulawayo’s biggest arrest in the audacious US$4 million Ecobank robbery took a dramatic nosedive yesterday, as a last-minute police blunder exposed critical flaws in the investigation.
The promised showdown in court turned into an embarrassing retreat, leaving more questions than answers about the fate of the country’s largest unsolved cash-in-transit heist.
The situation escalated dramatically yesterday when police in Bulawayo announced the arrest of two suspects, Sibonginkosi Sibanda and Thokozani Zulu, in connection with the robbery. However, their court appearance, which initially drew significant public interest, was later downplayed by the police, who downgraded the charges from armed robbery to money laundering.
The matter, originally scheduled to be heard in the morning, only commenced around 4PM. Zulu was cleared of all charges, while Sibanda, an employee of Safeguard Security Company, was formally charged with money laundering.
Sibanda was remanded in custody until Monday for a bail ruling.
Both Sibanda and Zulu were represented by Mr Prince Butshe-Dube of Butshe and Associates, who mounted a robust defence, effectively challenging the investigating officer, Detective Assistant Inspector Tawedzerwa Shiriyapenga, during cross-examination and significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.
During the proceedings, Mr Butshe-Dube questioned the foundation of the charges, pointing out that the pair had initially been arrested for armed robbery.
He pressed Asst Insp Shiriyapenga on why the charges had been altered, despite the original arrest being based on robbery allegations.
Asst Insp Shiriyapenga denied arresting the suspects for robbery — a claim quickly undermined when his affidavit, compiled that very morning, contradicted his statement.
“Earlier you said you did not arrest them for robbery. Yet your affidavit shows the accused was picked up for interviews in a robbery case. Were you being economical with the truth?” Mr Butshe-Dube asked pointedly.
Asst Insp Shiriyapenga attributed the discrepancy to a typing error.
Undeterred, Mr Butshe-Dube continued his line of questioning, exposing further inconsistencies in Asst Insp Shiriyapenga’s testimony.
In court, Asst Insp Shiriyapenga alleged that Sibanda had acquired several properties, some of which were registered under his wife’s and daughter’s names.
“Are you suggesting that a married woman cannot own property? Did you examine the agreements of sale and verify whose name appeared on the documents? Was it not his wife’s? Is there anything that needs to be recovered, as you claim, when everything is properly documented and above board?” Mr Butshe-Dube said.
The properties in question include two houses — one in Cowdray Park and another in Mbundane — two rural homesteads, a Honda Fit, and a Hino truck.
Despite being visibly unsettled during cross-examination, Asst Insp Shiriyapenga insisted that Sibanda posed a flight risk and opposed the granting of bail.
“You are not equipped to investigate this case. You are under-trained and have bungled the process. The charges were initially based on armed robbery, and there is no merit in the money laundering allegations. Do you even understand what money laundering entails? Are you aware of the Commercial Crimes Division? They handle such cases — not you. Yet you seek to deprive a man of his liberty,” Mr Butshe-Dube said.
Mr Butshe-Dube argued that Sibanda was a suitable candidate for bail, citing his clean record and the absence of any evidence linking him to criminal activity.
“This case was rushed, mishandled, and is not fit for prosecution,” he said.
The heist, still regarded as the largest in the country’s history, remains unsolved. It captured national attention and has left authorities scrambling to piece together clues and apprehend those responsible for the daring theft.
With the spotlight now on this latest twist, serious doubts have emerged over whether a crucial lead has been irreparably compromised.
