Ngoni Dapira

THE legal principle, “innocent until proven guilty” was demonstrated after the world was quick to judge. This was the case for 32-years old Medeline Magadza an insurance agent for Econet Insurance who was accused of stealing ZiG 1 171 771.60.

Magadza was facing charges of theft of trust property under Section 113 (2) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) [Chapter 9:23]. According to the State outline she was employed as an independent insurance agent responsible for selling insurance products and facilitating vehicle insurances and the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) vehicle licence renewals on behalf of Econet Insurance.

The theft allegedly occurred between June 1, 2024 and April 30, 2025. Magadza was accused of failing to remit proceeds of Econet Insurance motor vehicle insurance policies sold to clients, whilst in the second count it was also alleged that she had converted the funds for her personal use.

However, representing the accused, the defence lawyer Memory Mandingwa of Mhungu and Associates denied both charges.

During cross examination of the State’s key witness, Gift Zumbika, who is employed by Econet Zimbabwe in the Regional Security and Investigations Department, he produced different documents that showed the accused was an independent contractor since 2023, but during the alleged period, she had failed to remit the aforementioned money to the organization.

The defense however produced emails and Whats App chats between the accused and her direct supervisor which proved that the accused had not failed to account for the money, but there was actually an exonerating explanation and communication of what was happening. Zumbika was honest enough to state that he was not privy to the detailed emails produced in court. The State was forced to close the case and the accused applied for discharge at the close of the State case.

The Magistrate Perseverance Makhala said the State failed to prove a prima facie case as there seemed to be an understanding between the accused and her direct supervisor which was shown in the emails and Whats App chat messages. Adding that in terms of Section 198 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] where at the end of the State case the court considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it has no discretion but to acquit the accused.

“What was clear to the court was that the essential elements of the offence of theft were not proved by the State. There was no proof that the accused took the money and converted the money to her own use. Furthermore, the court wonders why the witness came to testify when he was not the immediate supervisor of the accused. The witness was not even aware of the communication that was between the accused and the supervisor…Therefore the State failed to prove a prima facie case against the accused. For these reasons, the accused is discharged at the close of the State case and found not guilty,” said Magistrate Makhala.