Witnesses struggle to nail Rushwaya

Zvikomborero Parafini

THE star witness in the matter in which Zimbabwe Miners Federation president, Henrietta Rushwaya, is being accused of bribery, struggled to nail her after he agreed in cross examination that he wasn’t bribed, at all.

The trial opened in the capital yesterday before Harare magistrate Learnmore Mapiye.

Rushwaya pleaded not guilty.

Rushwaya denied the allegations on the basis that she didn’t offer anyone money and the allegations were meant to soil her name.

The State opened its case by leading evidence from Zimbabwe Civil Aviation employee Owen Sibanda, who told the court that he was on duty on the day that Rushwaya intended to leave the country for Dubai on October 26, 2020.

“She had two suitcases, a big and a small one. As the bags went through the X-ray machine, I saw a dark object in her big suitcase.

“As a screener, when you’re not sure about an object in the bag, you have to conduct a physical search and since she was a lady, I advised the lady screener who was monitoring the walk through the metal detector to conduct a physical search on her bag.

“At the same time I asked Rushwaya what was in her bag, and she told me that she had gold in her bag and I requested for documentation allowing the export of gold but she told me that someone was bringing the papers.

“She showed me a commercial invoice and a parking note written Ali Japan Private Limited and a photocopy of her passport but I found the papers irrelevant, I was expecting papers from Fidelity Printers.

“While we were waiting she started saying she would give me 5 000 if I let her go through, I denied the offer,” he said.

In cross examination, lawyer Peter Phatisani on behalf of Rushwaya, questioned him what exactly was he offered?

He conceded that Rushwaya didn’t have any money on her nor did he bribe her as alleged.

Evidence was also led from Dzidzai Paradza. At the close of the state case, Rushwaya applied for discharge arguing that the State failed to prove its case.

“She can’t be said to have bribed a person with no duty to allow people passage out of the country. There was a concession by both witnesses, who testified that they did not see any amount of money on her person, neither did she indicate to them that she was going to make it in any form eg Ecocash, bank account or send someone to give them the money.

“In the absence of that it cannot be said the State has proved a case, there’s no currency mentioned if she is convicted, what amount would she have been convicted of offering?” said Phatisani.

He added that there were too many inconsistencies in the two witnesses’ testimonies on who exactly was offered to them.

The State opposed the application arguing that they proved their case arguing that both witnesses stated that there was an offer of 5000 to let her pass with the gold she was found in possession of.

Magistrate Mapiye postponed the matter to August 1 for ruling.