A Bulawayo magistrate acquitted a police detective and his co-accused in a vehicle theft case. The court ruled that the State failed to prove intent or actual removal of the vehicle. The case stemmed from an incident involving an impounded Toyota Hilux at Drill Hall Police Station.
A police detective and his alleged accomplice have been acquitted of theft of a motor vehicle after a Bulawayo magistrate ruled that the State failed to prove its case.
Master Genti (39), a detective in the CID Minerals, Flora and Fauna Section, and Richard Phiri (56) appeared before Mathew Mutiro on Tuesday for sentencing, but were cleared of all charges.
Advertisement
In his ruling, Mr Mutiro said the prosecution, led by Owen Mugari, did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the two men intended to steal the impounded vehicle.
The magistrate said there was no proof that the vehicle was driven out of the Drill Hall police yard or that it had been towed away. He added that assumptions could not be used to secure a conviction.
“To conclude that Mr Phiri intended to take the impounded car is just a mere assumption because he came to the Drill Hall at the invitation of his friend and there is no proof that they planned to steal the car,” said Mr Mutiro.
Richard Phiri was represented by his lawyer, Goodluck Katenaire, while Master Genti represented himself during the proceedings.
The court heard from the State that the case began on 18 December 2025, when Phiri was arrested for prospecting for gold without a licence. His vehicle, a Toyota Hilux, was impounded and kept at Drill Hall Police Station as evidence.
According to the prosecution, the two men allegedly planned to remove the vehicle from police custody on Christmas Eve. Mr Mugari told the court that they went to the CID Minerals, Flora and Fauna offices in Bulawayo at around 9 PM.
He alleged that the accused used duplicate keys to start the vehicle and reversed it out of the yard with its lights switched off. However, the attempt was stopped when a detective on duty noticed the vehicle and confronted them.
The prosecutor said the two failed to give a satisfactory explanation for moving an impounded vehicle, which raised suspicion at the time.
Despite these claims, the court ruled that the evidence presented was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a theft had taken place or that there was intent to steal.
