Prophet Magaya's bodyguard awaits bail ruling

THE High Court is set to deliver judgment tomorrow on the bail appeal of Tapiwa Felix Chikondo, a bodyguard to Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries leader Walter Magaya.

Justice Gibson Mandaza will preside over the ruling, which follows Chikondo's failed attempts to secure bail at the Magistrates' Court.

Chikondo was arrested on December 3 and charged with obstructing justice after allegedly interfering with police efforts to arrest his employer. His initial bail application was denied on December 5.

He later filed a second bail application on January 5, citing changed circumstances, but this was also dismissed by the Magistrates' Court, prompting him to approach the High Court.

In his appeal, prepared by his lawyer Mr Malvern Mapako, Chikondo argues that the lower court erred in denying him bail despite the existence of changed circumstances. He contends that the State relied on a separate charge to oppose his release, yet he was later acquitted of that offence.

According to the defence, the acquittal removed the basis upon which the Magistrates' Court concluded that Chikondo had a propensity to commit further offences.

"The court relied solely on the fact that the appellant had a pending case awaiting trial," Mapako argued. "He was subsequently tried and acquitted, which clearly constitutes changed circumstances that warrant the court to revisit its own decision."

The defence further maintained that the Magistrates' Court had relied on speculation, despite Chikondo having been lawfully acquitted, and insisted that he had been wrongly accused in the obstruction of justice matter.

However, the State opposed the appeal, arguing that the Magistrates' Court had properly exercised its discretion in denying bail.

State prosecutor Ms Paida Gutu submitted that there was strong evidence that Chikondo interfered with witnesses, a factor that independently justified the denial of bail.

"With these facts at hand, the lower court ruled that the risk of interference was very high. The factors as listed in section 117(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act were established by the respondent," she said.

Ms Gutu argued that the Magistrates' Court was not misdirected in its findings on the risk of interference and further submitted that Chikondo was also denied bail on the basis that he had a propensity to commit similar offences.

She added that Chikondo allegedly committed the offence while already on bail for another matter.

"Thus, it is submitted that the fact that the appellant was out on bail on another matter of a similar nature operated against him and, as such, the lower court was not misdirected when it denied him bail on this basis," Ms Gutu said.

Justice Mandaza's ruling is expected to determine whether Chikondo remains in custody pending trial or is granted bail.