Border control officer acquitted

A member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police Border Control section, Clayton Chipembere who appeared with his co-accused Clopas Nhamburo before Chiredzi magistrate, Geraldine Mutsoto, two months ago facing charges of taking bribes from a transport operator was  finally acquitted last week.

It was the court case that between January and December 2016 the accused jointly or individually received different amounts of money from Samuel Moyo whose vehicles are plying the Musina-Chiredzi route amounting to $222.

Moyo of house number 1149 Dilibadzimu Township in Beitbridge had alleged that he bought a refrigerator for Chipembere worth R3 800, in order for his vehicles Gutu Motors and Travel Tour to gain free passage.  

He went on to tell the court that the two once impounded his Mercedes Benz sprinter registration number ABQ5160 at Masimbiti shopping centre along Ngundu-Tanganda highway before demanding a bribe from him.

He further stated that he paid the two by transferring money through Ecocash amounts ranging from $16, $18, $50, $26, $52, and $60 throughout the year. The statement for the transactions made was produced in court. The matter came to light went he (Moyo) gave a bribe of $50 to Tinashe Chapungu also of the border control section and was subsequently arrested.

However, in giving a ruling Magistrate Mutsoto stated that the state witness was inconsistent on how much was demanded and how much he paid making the evidence questionable since the was no independent witnesses except for his employees.
She also said that the witness was evasive and never highlighted that they had other business transactions until a Pandora's Box was opened during cross examination by the accused's  lawyer, Langton Mhungu, when it was revealed that the witness and the accused were indeed involved in several business transactions, which he (the witness) tried to conceal.

She went on to say the court believes that in this case there is a peculiar danger in the witness's evidence because the starting point was that there was no report produced from investigating officer that he indeed gave the witness a go ahead to trap the accused.

"In analyzing the evidence that was presented the court believes that the accused was not within Chiredzi on the day of the commission of the offence. This was against the witness' adamancy that he was indeed at the scene.

Due to lack of satisfactory evidence against Chipembere-he was subsequently discharged. Nhamburo, was however, not acquitted after he failed to explain what happened the money he was given by Moyo.

In conclusion, Magistrate Mutsoto went further to state that, "The case reminds us there is a presumption in terms of section 170 (2) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act 9:23 which requires that once the second accused person accepted that he received money from the complainant he had to discharge the onus cast by the presumption created in the state's favour that he had received the money in contravention of the provisions of section 170.

"His case is different from that of accused one because the court believes no court can safely convict him based on the fact that it was established on the balance of probabilities that he was engaged in business with the complainant. Accused two is accordingly not discharged."