By Panashe Divine Karidzagundi
Proceedings in a high-profile dagga possession and trafficking case took a dramatic turn at the Beitbridge Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, December 16 2025, after a CID detective’s conduct on the witness stand raised questions about credibility and procedure.
Tonderai Tirivavi and Tafadzwa Makanga appeared before Magistrate T. Gwazemba facing charges of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs following the alleged recovery of 21.8 kilograms of dagga at the Beitbridge Bus Terminus on 3 December 2025.
Both accused denied the allegations.
The State being represented by Prosecutor Mercy Nyathi called CID Detective Constable Emmanuel Bvuma, stationed at CID Beitbridge, as its first witness.
Detective Bvuma told the court, he was on duty when police received a tip-off regarding a suspected delivery of concealed dagga allegedly packed in sausages, wrapped in black plastic, and placed inside boxes.
“The information originated from South Africa and was tracked up to the bus terminus at rank,” Bvuma testified.
He said police proceeded to the bus terminus, where Makanga allegedly attempted to load the parcels onto a Vicky Logistics Bus, but the bus crew refused.
Tirivavi then allegedly loaded the boxes back into a silver Probox vehicle, after which the two drove off along Shule Shule Road.
Police followed and intercepted the vehicle.
According to Bvuma, Makanga fled the scene and could not be located immediately, while Tirivavi was arrested and taken to CID Beitbridge for further investigations.
Bvuma told the court that while in custody, Tirivavi repeatedly contacted Makanga, who later reported to the CID offices and attempted to clear Tirivavi’s name.
Both men were then arrested. Police later recovered 16 cobs of dagga, weighing 21.8kg, from the boxes.
However, the trial took a tense turn during cross-examination when Detective Bvuma appeared visibly agitated while being asked to read from a recorded statement.
He struggled to read portions of the document and became defensive, prompting defence lawyer Pithey Magumula to accuse him of deliberately avoiding sections that allegedly favoured Makanga.
“The detective is failing to read the statement because it favours Makanga,” Magumula submitted.
The witness was further challenged for allegedly contradicting earlier statements made under oath.
Several aspects of his oral testimony were said to differ from what was contained in the recorded statement.
In response, Detective Bvuma distanced himself from parts of the statement, insisting that his role in the matter was limited.
“My duty was just to arrest the accused persons, and I am not the investigative officer,” he told the court.
During further cross-examination, the defence questioned whether Tirivavi’s occupation as a taxi driver and Makanga’s role as a cross-border trader were disputed.
“I do not know and I do not dispute that. I only know them in connection with this issue,” the detective responded.
Tension also arose over the issue of the tip-off, with the defence questioning how Tirivavi could have known the contents of the parcels if police already had intelligence on the consignment.
The State intervened, submitting that the witness was merely recounting events surrounding the interception.
Proceedings were further complicated when the State called its second witness, only for it to emerge that the witness had been present in court during the testimony of the first witness.
When questioned by the court, the prosecutor confirmed the irregularity.
“Yes, my worship, he was present during the first witness’s testimony, and it is unfortunate that we did not notice it,” the State said.
The matter was adjourned and postponed to 17 December 2025 for continuation of trial.