Police Officer In Malicous Court Application To Revoke Muringi Bail
A Harare magistrate has ruled in favor of Levison Shingi Muringi, dismissing the state’s application to revoke his bail, in the disputed USD85,000 transaction case. The magistrate citied false testimony from police officer, Detective Cornelias Evans Dangare.
Magistrate Rejects False Testimony
After a thorough evaluation of the evidence, the magistrate deemed Detective Dangare’s assertion of Muringi’s non-compliance with bail conditions false. Muringi’s attorney, Claude Bare from Claude, Petronellah & Nomazulu At Law, submitted a verified reporting schedule from Avondale Police Station, confirming the accused’s consistent compliance by reporting every Friday as mandated.
Expressing apprehension, Muringi’s attorney highlighted the investigating officer’s potential bias, hinting at a personal grudge. The defense contended that Detective Dangare presented an unsupported and fabricated statement, eroding the case’s legitimacy.
Insufficient Evidence of Interference
Constable Dangare alleged that Muringi was interfering with state witnesses and applied for the revocation of his warrant of liberation. However, the magistrate found the state’s evidence lacking and stated that there was no reasonable proof of witness interference.
One of the state witnesses, Harare car dealer Wilberforce Ruzvidzo, had provided a statement claiming that Muringi had requested altered receipts. However, the defense effectively refuted these claims, highlighting the absence of supporting evidence.
Court Rejects Ruzvidzo’s Testimony
The court deemed Ruzvidzo’s testimony unreliable and inadmissible. It appeared he was attempting to utilize state resources to address civil matters within a criminal court setting, as argued by Muringi’s lawyer.
In the conclusive ruling, the magistrate emphasized that there were no grounds to revoke Muringi’s bail. The accused was instructed to maintain his existing reporting schedule until the resolution of the case.
Muringi and Chigogwana find solace in the state’s application dismissal, granting them temporary relief amidst the ongoing legal proceedings regarding the contested USD85,000 transaction.