High Court Judge’s son granted bail

Masvingo High Court Judge Justice Garainesu Mawadze’s murder accused son was last week granted bail after languishing in custody for over a month. Munyaradzi Mawadze’s alleged accomplices Elvin Dongo Saungweme and Dello David Balani were also recently granted bail.

The trio stands accused of killing Harare phone dealer Milton Ncube by slitting his throat with a knife after robbing him of three iPhone Promax 11 cellphones. Munyaradzi was freed on $3000 bail when he appeared before Justice Webster Chinamora.

Granting Munyaradzi bail, Justice Chinamora found no reason to deny Munyaradzi bail, citing that his accomplices who are facing the same charge were recently granted the same relief. Munyaradzi was ordered to continue residing at his given address in Waterfalls, Harare.

According to state media, the court found that the reasons submitted earlier in opposition of bail contradicted the evidence led from the investigating officer Detective Sergeant Terence Muunze in court. Justice Chinamora revealed that there were notable shortcomings in the State’s case. The State had argued that the accused was a flight risk due to overwhelming evidence implicating him to the crime.

However, what emerged from Det Serg Muunze’s evidence was that Munyaradzi was neither linked to the suspected murder weapon nor the deceased’s phone, which were recovered from his accomplices. Further, the court heard that the evidence revealed that it was not Munyaradzi who led police to the deceased’s corpse. He was only linked to the killing after he was found with blood soiled clothes hidden at his Harare apartment.

Justice Chinamora added that although an argument could be established that the blood-soaked clothes linked the accused to the crime, the question to be posed is: does that establish a point of departure or simply puts all three accused persons in the same bracket?

‘My answer is that nothing sets them apart. I find no supportable basis for treating the applicant differently from his co-accused. It is astounding that despite conceding that no basis for distinction was evident in the Form 242, the investigating officer steadfastly maintained opposition to bail.’