Harare – In a landmark decision, the High Court of Zimbabwe has overturned the conviction of Tendai Zuze, who was serving a 10-year sentence for his alleged involvement in the US$2.7 million ZB Bank cash-in-transit heist of 2021.
Judges of appeal Happias Zhou and Benjamin Chikowero ruled that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice, citing a failure by the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence linking Zuze to the crime.
The robbery, which involved the interception of a ZB Bank cash-in-transit van near Nyabira on the Harare-Chinhoyi highway, was the largest cash heist in Zimbabwean history at the time. Zuze’s conviction in September of last year came alongside those of Never Mwamuka and ZB Bank employee Shadreck Njowa, who was identified as the mastermind behind the operation.
The prosecution’s case against Zuze rested largely on circumstantial evidence. This included the recovery of US$35,000 in cash upon his arrest; his purchase of a Honda Fit vehicle two days after the robbery; and mobile phone records placing him near Nyabira at the time of the heist.
The prosecution also presented evidence that Zuze drove his wife’s car through the Nyabira tollgate shortly before the robbery. Zuze’s trial heard that he explained that US$10,000 of the US$35,000 found in his possession belonged to his wife, from her Stokvel savings, and the rest were his earnings from small-scale mining.
Trial magistrate Clever Tsikwa based his verdict on this circumstantial evidence, concluding that it pointed to Zuze’s involvement in the robbery. The magistrate also considered an Econet call log, which showed Zuze’s mobile phone was in the Nyabira area during the robbery, although the log did not identify the recipient of his calls.
However, the appeal judges found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. They noted that the state failed to provide crucial evidence linking the recovered US$35,000 to the stolen money. Crucially, ZB Bank did not record the serial numbers of the banknotes before dispatching the cash, making it impossible to definitively prove that the money found on Zuze was part of the stolen funds.
The judges’ ruling stated that: “It thus was common cause that ZB Bank, through the first state witness (John Chiwawa), could not identify the huge sums of money recovered from Zuze and his then co-accused as being part of the money stolen from ZB Bank.”
The judges further highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking Zuze to the crime. They stated that: “It also was common cause both at the trial and before us that there was no direct evidence linking Zuze to the commission of the offence. The court convicted him after inferring that he was involved in the commission of the offence. That inference was drawn from what the trial court viewed as circumstantial evidence. In reality it was not.”
The judges emphasised that mere suspicion is not evidence, stating: “At its highest, even taken together with the other circumstances listed in this judgement, the fact that the appellant purchased a Honda Fit vehicle two days after the commission of the offence may have raised eyebrows. But suspicion is not evidence.”
The judges found that the trial court had wrongly disregarded Zuze’s explanation that he was a small-scale miner, capable of handling large sums of money. They stated that: “The state did not, a quo, controvert the appellant’s explanation that he was a small-scale miner given to obtaining and spending huge sums of money. The trial court did not find that he was not a small-scale miner…”
The judges concluded that the trial court’s reliance on weak circumstantial evidence while ignoring exculpatory evidence constituted a gross miscarriage of justice.
The judges’ ruling concluded: “In the result, it is ordered that the appeal is allowed. The conviction is quashed and the sentence set aside… Accused 2 (Zuze) is found not guilty and is acquitted.”
