Bulawayo’s deputy mayor, Edwin Ndlovu, walked free on Wednesday after a local magistrate acquitted him of allegations that he demanded a US$20 000 bribe from a company seeking land to establish a cement plant.
Magistrate Richard Ramaboea ruled that the State had failed to prove its case, describing key evidence as contradictory and unreliable.
Ndlovu, who had been jointly charged with Ward 26 councillor and Finance and Development Committee chairperson Mpumelelo Moyo, said he was relieved by the acquittal.
“I feel a bit relieved. This is time to go back to do my duties as mandated by residents of Bulawayo,” said the deputy mayor in a brief interview with CITE outside court, standing with his lawyer, Zibusiso Ncube of Ncube and Partners.
Ndlovu declined to speak further, noting that his co-accused, Moyo, who is out on bail and not yet free, is due to present his defence later this month.
Prosecutors alleged that Ndlovu and Moyo solicited the bribe from Labenmon Investments in exchange for facilitating the approval of a 5.6-hectare piece of land in Cowdray Park.
The State relied heavily on the testimony of company representative Tsitsi Mapfumo and on forensic handwriting analysis linking Ndlovu to a disputed document, referred to as Exhibit 5, which allegedly listed 20 councillors who were to receive US$1 000 each.
The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) mounted a sting operation in 2024, leading to the arrest of Councillor Moyo at Mapfumo’s home while the deputy mayor was arrested at Mzilikazi Police Station when he had been asked to go see Moyo after his arrest.
However, Magistrate Ramaboea said cracks soon appeared in the State’s case, particularly surrounding Exhibit 5 and the alleged handling of cash regarding Ndlovu’s alleged involvement.
In a lengthy judgment, Magistrate Ramaboea dismantled the State’s case against Ndlovum citing the evidence of Mapfumo, who also used the name Tsitsi Nyathi, was riddled with contradictions.
“Now Exhibit 5, which is crucial to accused number two, is a letter from the same company. She is listed there under Tsitsi Nyathi as director, being known as Tsitsi Mapfumo or Tsitsi Nyathi. That itself is not a real issue because she explained that the other surname is a remnant of her previous marriage.
“The real issue is why did anyone draft a letter that tells a blatant lie? Or did she not draft it? Why did she allow her name to be on it, telling a lie and moving around with it?” the magistrate asked.
The magistrate noted that Mapfumo admitted writing part of Exhibit 5, which falsely stated that she had received US$20 000 from a business associate yet she could not explain why she wrote such a statement.
Further undermining the prosecution’s case, the investigating officer conceded under oath that the so-called “trap money” was not US$20 000 but “US$20 and pieces of paper.”
“I did not see anything wrong or adverse about the investigating officer’s statements. I found him to be a truthful and credible person. He even conceded issues that are negative to the State’s case, such as using his own money as trap money,” the magistrate said.
“Whether or not the trap was properly authorised is not an issue, because entrapment is not a defence in our law. In terms of Section 250 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, unfair or undesirable entrapment methods are considered only as factors during sentencing, not as a defence.”
Turning to the forensic handwriting analysis that allegedly tied Ndlovu to the document, Magistrate Ramaboea dismissed the expert’s testimony as inconsistent and unreliable.
“He said it is not true that Exhibit 5 was plotted by two persons. It is a document by one person,” Ramaboea noted.
“This would most probably be the case considering that he insisted categorically that the document was written by one person. If that is so, should an expert be told this or should he pick it up himself? Now, if he fails to pick it up himself, what does it tell about the weight to be placed on this conclusion?”
Magistrate Ramaboea also criticised prosecutors for defending “what cannot be defended.”
“I have expected the State to concede that the questioned document examiner all but came and exonerated the accused two. There is no harm in saying that because that is the truth. While the prosecutor can have the luxury of deliberately ignoring evidence that does not advance a conviction, the court cannot do so,” he said.
In conclusion, the magistrate ruled that the State had failed to produce independent, credible evidence linking Ndlovu to the alleged offence.
“The answer is that there is nothing that remains. The only other person who can say that is the accused number one,” he said.
“As regards to accused number two, the State has failed to establish that. Therefore, the accused number two will at the close of the State’s case be found not guilty and acquitted.”
While Ndlovu was cleared, the court ordered Moyo to mount a defence.
Magistrate Ramaboea said evidence from the complainant and the investigating officer placed him at Mapfumo’s house, allegedly holding the envelope said to contain the US$20 000.
“The end of justice would demand that the accused number one must explain what he was doing in the complainant’s house and also why the investigating officer and Tsitsi Mapfumo claimed he was arrested whilst holding the said money,” the magistrate said.
Moyo, represented by lawyer Prince Butshe Dube of Butshe and Associates, is expected to present his defence on August 25, 2025 as he asked for time to go through the magistrate’s ruling.