Opinion / Columnist
Is trap money enough? Questioning the over-reliance on sting operations in corruption cases
3 hrs ago | Views
We need to be very careful when dealing with corruption.
In the pursuit of a corruption-free Zimbabwe, it is imperative that we not only strengthen the tools used to hold public officials accountable but also plug any legal loopholes that might be exploited by those genuinely guilty of abuse.
One such loophole lies in the over-reliance on sting operations involving marked "trap" money - used as the primary evidence in bribery cases.
While these methods may appear to offer swift justice, they risk undermining the very integrity of the justice system if not accompanied by strong procedural safeguards.
If the fight against corruption is to be effective and credible, then it must also be watertight.
Those who accept bribes must face justice - but that justice must be based on solid, incontrovertible evidence.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Otherwise, we open the door for corrupt individuals to evade conviction by challenging weakly substantiated cases, while also risking the wrongful arrest of innocent people who may be victims of entrapment, false allegations, or misunderstood circumstances.
The recent arrest of a 25-year-old court interpreter at Mbare Magistrates' Court, accused of demanding a US$200 bribe to influence the outcome of a case, is a prime example of why we must interrogate this approach.
According to the allegations, Tadiwanashe Chikomo approached Natasha Matikiti, whose husband had been arrested for wearing camouflage, and offered to assist her if the court ruling was unfavorable.
After she initially handed him US$120, Matikiti reported the matter to the police.
A sting operation was then set up using US$80 in marked notes, which Chikomo allegedly accepted during a meeting outside the court.
He was promptly arrested, and the trap money recovered.
At face value, this may appear to be a textbook example of successful anti-corruption enforcement.
However, the question that arises is whether the mere act of receiving trap money, in the absence of any other substantive evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery or criminal abuse of duty.
Can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect had the mens rea - the guilty mind - to commit the crime, and not merely the actus reus - the guilty act of receiving money?
In criminal law, both elements must be present to establish guilt.
The prosecution must not only show that the accused accepted money, but also that there was a clear and deliberate understanding that the money was being received in exchange for an illegal favor.
Without concrete proof of such intent - through a recorded conversation, text messages, or credible witnesses - the case risks being built on shaky ground.
This is especially concerning in Zimbabwe, where many sting operations proceed without the use of surveillance tools like hidden audio or video recorders.
In most cases, the authorities rely solely on the marked money and the word of the complainant.
This creates a dangerous situation where the police may observe the physical exchange of cash, but have no idea what was said between the parties.
In the absence of verifiable recordings, how can we be certain that the accused knew the money was a bribe?
What if the complainant had misled the suspect into believing the money was for a legitimate purpose, such as repayment of a loan, a gift, or compensation for unrelated assistance?
A malicious complainant, driven by personal vendetta, could falsely claim that someone demanded a bribe, leading the police to conduct a sting.
If the suspect is unaware they are being targeted and accepts money under different pretenses, they can easily be wrongfully arrested.
This is where the risk of entrapment becomes evident - when an individual is induced by law enforcement or a cooperating complainant to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.
In jurisdictions governed by the rule of law, entrapment is considered a serious procedural violation and can lead to acquittals, even if money changed hands.
Furthermore, corruption trials should not devolve into battles of word against word.
While the marked trap money is useful for establishing that a transaction took place, it must be corroborated by other credible forms of evidence that can speak to the suspect's knowledge and intention.
Was there a recording of the bribe being solicited?
Did the complainant have a prior communication that confirms a corrupt agreement?
Can independent witnesses verify the nature of the transaction?
Without this, even a guilty individual may escape conviction due to the principle of reasonable doubt.
Indeed, across various legal systems, courts have repeatedly cautioned against convicting suspects based solely on trap money, especially where no audio or visual corroboration exists.
In Kenya, India, and even parts of the United States, several bribery convictions have been overturned because the prosecution could not prove that the suspect knew the money was part of a corrupt deal.
This raises the concern that if Zimbabwe continues to rely exclusively on marked cash without proper supporting evidence, the anti-corruption fight will be rendered vulnerable to both malicious manipulation and legal technicalities.
Moreover, the credibility of complainants must also be scrutinized.
The justice system cannot afford to operate on the assumption that every person reporting a bribe is acting in good faith.
The police, prosecutors, and judiciary have a duty to assess the complainant's motive, history, and consistency of testimony.
Failure to do so opens the door for abuse of the legal system - not just by corrupt officials, but also by dishonest individuals seeking revenge or leverage.
In an environment where technology is increasingly available, it is essential that law enforcement agencies upgrade their investigative procedures.
Covert audio recorders, hidden cameras, and digital communication tracking should become standard in sting operations, especially in sensitive cases involving state officials or judicial officers.
The use of marked money should be treated as one piece of the puzzle - not the entire picture.
If we are to win the war against corruption, we must be careful not to sacrifice fairness for expedience.
Catching genuine offenders is important - but convicting the wrong person due to flawed or incomplete procedures is equally dangerous.
A justice system that cuts corners eventually becomes indistinguishable from the corrupt actors it seeks to punish.
Zimbabwe must strengthen its evidentiary standards, insist on corroboration in bribery cases, and guard against entrapment.
Only then can the fight against corruption be both effective and just.
©Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
In the pursuit of a corruption-free Zimbabwe, it is imperative that we not only strengthen the tools used to hold public officials accountable but also plug any legal loopholes that might be exploited by those genuinely guilty of abuse.
One such loophole lies in the over-reliance on sting operations involving marked "trap" money - used as the primary evidence in bribery cases.
While these methods may appear to offer swift justice, they risk undermining the very integrity of the justice system if not accompanied by strong procedural safeguards.
If the fight against corruption is to be effective and credible, then it must also be watertight.
Those who accept bribes must face justice - but that justice must be based on solid, incontrovertible evidence.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Otherwise, we open the door for corrupt individuals to evade conviction by challenging weakly substantiated cases, while also risking the wrongful arrest of innocent people who may be victims of entrapment, false allegations, or misunderstood circumstances.
The recent arrest of a 25-year-old court interpreter at Mbare Magistrates' Court, accused of demanding a US$200 bribe to influence the outcome of a case, is a prime example of why we must interrogate this approach.
According to the allegations, Tadiwanashe Chikomo approached Natasha Matikiti, whose husband had been arrested for wearing camouflage, and offered to assist her if the court ruling was unfavorable.
After she initially handed him US$120, Matikiti reported the matter to the police.
A sting operation was then set up using US$80 in marked notes, which Chikomo allegedly accepted during a meeting outside the court.
He was promptly arrested, and the trap money recovered.
At face value, this may appear to be a textbook example of successful anti-corruption enforcement.
However, the question that arises is whether the mere act of receiving trap money, in the absence of any other substantive evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery or criminal abuse of duty.
Can the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect had the mens rea - the guilty mind - to commit the crime, and not merely the actus reus - the guilty act of receiving money?
In criminal law, both elements must be present to establish guilt.
The prosecution must not only show that the accused accepted money, but also that there was a clear and deliberate understanding that the money was being received in exchange for an illegal favor.
Without concrete proof of such intent - through a recorded conversation, text messages, or credible witnesses - the case risks being built on shaky ground.
This is especially concerning in Zimbabwe, where many sting operations proceed without the use of surveillance tools like hidden audio or video recorders.
In most cases, the authorities rely solely on the marked money and the word of the complainant.
This creates a dangerous situation where the police may observe the physical exchange of cash, but have no idea what was said between the parties.
In the absence of verifiable recordings, how can we be certain that the accused knew the money was a bribe?
What if the complainant had misled the suspect into believing the money was for a legitimate purpose, such as repayment of a loan, a gift, or compensation for unrelated assistance?
A malicious complainant, driven by personal vendetta, could falsely claim that someone demanded a bribe, leading the police to conduct a sting.
This is where the risk of entrapment becomes evident - when an individual is induced by law enforcement or a cooperating complainant to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.
In jurisdictions governed by the rule of law, entrapment is considered a serious procedural violation and can lead to acquittals, even if money changed hands.
Furthermore, corruption trials should not devolve into battles of word against word.
While the marked trap money is useful for establishing that a transaction took place, it must be corroborated by other credible forms of evidence that can speak to the suspect's knowledge and intention.
Was there a recording of the bribe being solicited?
Did the complainant have a prior communication that confirms a corrupt agreement?
Can independent witnesses verify the nature of the transaction?
Without this, even a guilty individual may escape conviction due to the principle of reasonable doubt.
Indeed, across various legal systems, courts have repeatedly cautioned against convicting suspects based solely on trap money, especially where no audio or visual corroboration exists.
In Kenya, India, and even parts of the United States, several bribery convictions have been overturned because the prosecution could not prove that the suspect knew the money was part of a corrupt deal.
This raises the concern that if Zimbabwe continues to rely exclusively on marked cash without proper supporting evidence, the anti-corruption fight will be rendered vulnerable to both malicious manipulation and legal technicalities.
Moreover, the credibility of complainants must also be scrutinized.
The justice system cannot afford to operate on the assumption that every person reporting a bribe is acting in good faith.
The police, prosecutors, and judiciary have a duty to assess the complainant's motive, history, and consistency of testimony.
Failure to do so opens the door for abuse of the legal system - not just by corrupt officials, but also by dishonest individuals seeking revenge or leverage.
In an environment where technology is increasingly available, it is essential that law enforcement agencies upgrade their investigative procedures.
Covert audio recorders, hidden cameras, and digital communication tracking should become standard in sting operations, especially in sensitive cases involving state officials or judicial officers.
The use of marked money should be treated as one piece of the puzzle - not the entire picture.
If we are to win the war against corruption, we must be careful not to sacrifice fairness for expedience.
Catching genuine offenders is important - but convicting the wrong person due to flawed or incomplete procedures is equally dangerous.
A justice system that cuts corners eventually becomes indistinguishable from the corrupt actors it seeks to punish.
Zimbabwe must strengthen its evidentiary standards, insist on corroboration in bribery cases, and guard against entrapment.
Only then can the fight against corruption be both effective and just.
©Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
