Story by Parvel Makona
THE trial of a 38-year-old man accused of kidnapping a former employee while allegedly impersonating a police officer continued at the Harare Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, with the complainant vigorously defending his testimony under cross-examination.
Simbarashe Emmanuel Martin Rondozai is facing one count of kidnapping as defined in Section 93 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. He has not yet been called upon to plead because four other suspects linked to the alleged offence are still at large.
The State alleges that in May 2025, Rondozai and four accomplices drove to the complainant, Tafadzwa Mutanda’s, home in Zengeza 5, Chitungwiza, at around 9pm in a silver Honda Fit.
According to the prosecution, two of the men identified themselves as police officers before allegedly handcuffing and blindfolding Mutanda. He was allegedly assaulted and detained for about eight hours while being questioned about security operations at a local security company where Rondozai had previously been his manager.
The court heard that Mutanda was later dumped near a bridge along New Chitungwiza Road before fleeing to South Africa, where he remained until returning to Zimbabwe in December 2025.
During cross-examination, defence counsel Mr Oliver Marwa challenged Mutanda’s account of his departure from Zimbabwe, asking him to provide proof that he had travelled to South Africa.
Mutanda told the court he had crossed the border illegally and therefore had no travel documents.
“I don’t have exactly, but what I am saying is the truth because I crossed illegally,” he said.
The defence also suggested that Mutanda fled after learning that a report of theft of trust property had been made against him, an allegation he denied.
“I was not aware that a report had been made,” he told the court.
Mutanda said he remained in South Africa from May to December 2025 and communicated with his wife indirectly through other people because he feared for his safety.
Mr Marwa further questioned Mutanda over allegations that he had paid an individual allegedly posing as a police officer not to disclose his whereabouts after the alleged kidnapping.
Mutanda rejected the allegation, saying the money was merely a gesture of gratitude.
“No, I did not bribe anyone. It was an appreciation for not disclosing my location to the accused,” he said.
The defence also challenged Mutanda’s identification of Rondozai, arguing that the alleged incident occurred at night. However, Mutanda maintained that he had no difficulty recognising the accused because they had worked together for eight years.
“I saw him, and he is a person I know and have worked with for eight years,” he said.
When questioned about alleged inconsistencies between his testimony and his wife’s police statement, which reportedly referred to masked assailants, Mutanda said he could not comment on matters contained in her statement.
“I cannot speak on behalf of my wife,” he said.
The State successfully objected to that line of questioning, arguing that the witness could not testify on another person’s statement. The magistrate upheld the objection.
Mutanda was later asked to read the concluding paragraph of his police statement to determine whether it directly implicated Rondozai. After reading it aloud, he confirmed it did not specifically mention the accused.
“There was nothing specifically relating to that,” he said.
The matter was remanded to July 15 for the continuation of trial.
