Cleric and founder of Prophetic Healing and Deliverance Ministries, Walter Magaya, has filed a fresh application seeking the referral of his ongoing r@pe case to the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe, arguing that the prosecution against him is unconstitutional and violates his right to a fair trial.

The application was submitted before Harare regional magistrate Francis Mapfumo through Magaya’s legal representatives, Admire Rubaya and Everson Chatambudza.

It follows an earlier request for constitutional referral in which Magaya argued he had been denied a trial conducted in open court. A ruling in that application is still pending.

Magaya Challenges Legality of Prosecution

In a founding affidavit filed before the court, Magaya said he was seeking intervention from the Constitutional Court on questions relating to processes that he claims affect his fundamental rights.

Magaya is currently facing six counts of r@pe involving three complainants, allegations he has consistently denied.

“I stand charged with six counts of r@pe relating to three complainants,” Magaya stated in the affidavit, noting that the alleged incidents are said to have occurred between 2013 and 2018.

He argued that the prosecution process had been irregular and prejudicial.

“I have, for some months now, been the victim of these false complaints,” Magaya said.

Claims of Withdrawn Allegations

Magaya also told the court that some complainants had allegedly withdrawn their accusations and indicated they no longer wished to testify.

“The affidavit confirms that the complainant no longer wishes to testify and that she has communicated this position to the Prosecutor General,” he said.

Magaya argued that continuing with the prosecution despite the withdrawals amounts to an abuse of the justice system.

“Without the complaint, the charge collapses. To proceed in such circumstances is not an exercise of lawful authority but a hollow performance masquerading in the name of the law,” he said.

Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct

The cleric further alleged misconduct during the investigation process, claiming that prosecutors disclosed in court that a complainant’s statement had been amended.

According to Magaya, the recording and amendment of witness statements falls under the investigative role of the Zimbabwe Republic Police rather than prosecutors.

“In this case, the public prosecutors admitted to amending a witness statement clearly dissatisfied with the original version because it did not advance the narrative they intended to choreograph against me,” he stated.

Magaya also said he was served with a later witness statement months after his arrest, while the original statement that led to his arrest had not been disclosed.

Concerns Over DNA Evidence

Magaya further raised concerns about the handling of DNA evidence in the case.

“I was taken from Harare Remand Prison to Parirenyatwa Hospital against my will and in the absence of my legal practitioners, where my DNA was extracted,” he said.

He added that the results of the DNA test had not been disclosed to him.

“The State’s failure to disclose these results suggests that the results may be negative and do not support the State’s case,” Magaya argued.

Prosecutors Oppose Application

The National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe is opposing the application.

In an opposing affidavit, Chief Public Prosecutor Foelane Muronda rejected claims that authorities had mishandled a withdrawal letter from one of the complainants.

“This is denied. On the day of the trial the letter had not yet been referred to the trial prosecutor as it was addressed to the Prosecutor General and was undergoing administrative processes,” Muronda said.

Case Returns to Court

Magaya is seeking the referral of several constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court, including whether the continued prosecution violates his rights to liberty, equality before the law and a fair trial under Section 70 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

“The process sought to be activated by the state yields by its very nature the deprivation of my liberty. That deprivation is unlawful and consequently of no validity,” he stated.

The matter is expected to return to court on Thursday for continuation of the hearing.

Court Correspondent | Adapted from reporting by Mary Taruvinga