Prophet Magaya says detention was unconstitutional

Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries founder Walter Magaya has filed an urgent application at the High Court seeking a review of a magistrate's decision to place him on remand, arguing that his detention was unconstitutional and amounted to a grave miscarriage of justice.

In his application, lodged through Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners, Magaya cited Harare regional magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa and the Prosecutor-General of Zimbabwe as respondents. He contends that the magistrate acted "without jurisdiction" after he was detained beyond the constitutionally mandated 48-hour limit before being brought to court.

"The 1st Respondent's decision to entertain an application for placement of Applicant on remand is so manifestly irrational and grossly outrageous in its defiance of logic that no sensible court would arrive at it," Magaya said in his founding affidavit.

The cleric, who faces five counts of rape and 13 counts of fraud, argued that Section 50(3) of the Constitution is explicit that any person detained for longer than 48 hours must be released immediately.

"Must means must," Magaya emphasized. "The phrase ‘must be released immediately' is not merely directory but peremptory, creating a constitutional obligation that admits of no judicial discretion."

He claimed that the State had conceded during proceedings that he was detained beyond the lawful period, yet Magistrate Gofa still proceeded to remand him. "This breach is not a matter of conjecture," he argued. "It is factual and borne out by the express and unequivocal concession of the State Counsel for the 2nd Respondent."

Magaya described his November 1 arrest as "deeply troubling," alleging that "a large contingent of heavily armed police officers descended upon me while I was engaged in prayer."

He accused the magistrate of "brazenly subverting the Constitution" by suggesting his remedy lay in suing for damages rather than being released. "By transforming this clear constitutional command into a mere precursor to civil litigation, the 1st Respondent effectively rewrote the people's will as expressed in the Constitution," he argued.

"If unchecked, this arbitrary erosion of liberty will metastasise, emboldening law enforcement agents to regard themselves as a law unto their own," Magaya warned.

Magaya also took issue with the magistrate's reliance on the Agripa Mloyi v The State precedent, saying it was "wholly inapposite" and that a more relevant ruling - Panganai Davison Madondo v The State - had been ignored.

In his application, he further accused the Zimbabwe Gender Commission (ZGC) of "manufacturing allegations" against him by publicly inviting rape complainants through a newspaper advert. "The subsequent complainants only emerged after this public invitation," Magaya alleged.

In his draft order, Magaya is asking the High Court to set aside the magistrate's ruling of November 4, 2025, and to have him removed from remand on all charges of rape and fraud.

He insists that the High Court's intervention is necessary to halt what he describes as "continuing violations" of his constitutional rights.

"The principle that you cannot put something on nothing, it will collapse, applies with equal force here," Magaya submitted.

Magaya is represented by Admire Rubaya, Everson Chatambudza, and Advocate Sylvester Hashiti.

The matter is yet to be heard.