Holy Ten rape charge withdrawn as lawyer says complainant admitted lying to police
The State has withdrawn a rape charge against Zimbabwean musician Mukudzei Chitsama, popularly known as Holy Ten, before he entered a plea, saying there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
The decision was announced at the Harare court on November 5, after the musician’s lawyers had written to prosecutors challenging the evidence. Their letter said the complainant had initially told police that nothing had happened and later said she had lied when making that first statement. That account appears in the defence’s submission to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA); the withdrawal announcement did not publicly set out a detailed account from the complainant.
Chitsama appeared before regional magistrate Francis Mapfumo when the charge was withdrawn. His lawyer, Admire Rubaya of Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners, had sent a four-page letter to the NPA on October 27, arguing that the material gathered by investigators could not support a trial. The musician had not decided what action to take after the withdrawal, according to the court update.
The letter challenged the medical findings, questioned the consistency of the complainant’s statements and disputed parts of her account of the events. It also urged prosecutors to consider evidence from another witness. The defence’s claims were arguments made to the NPA; the State’s stated reason for withdrawing the charge was that evidence was insufficient to sustain prosecution.
The complainant’s first statement to police is central to the defence’s account. The letter quoted a passage from her statement saying she “passed through the Police Station and told the Police Officers that nothing had happened.” It then stated: “She now states that she lied to the Police Officer when she alleged that nothing had happened.”
The lawyers argued that the change between the initial statement and the later allegation raised questions about the reliability of the case. The letter further claimed that the complainant had been taken back to the police station by another person and alleged that the complaint was made under pressure. Those assertions were presented by the defence as reasons for prosecutors to reconsider the case.
The lawyers also questioned the complainant’s description of the room where the alleged assault took place. They said her account described the door as locked from inside before 4 men entered the room. The defence argued that the account did not explain how the men could have entered if the door remained locked. The letter said an independent witness could provide information about what had happened.
Medical findings were another part of the defence submission. The letter said the complainant was examined on July 21, the day after the alleged incident, and cited a report that noted healed hymenal tears but no bruises or abrasions on the genital area. The lawyers argued that the examination did not record fresh injuries linked to the incident. They used that point to dispute the charge, while the State’s withdrawal notice cited insufficient evidence without publicly detailing how each item of evidence had been assessed.
The case began with Chitsama’s arrest in July. He appeared in court on July 22 facing a charge involving a 14-year-old girl. Prosecutors did not oppose bail, saying investigations were continuing and that they were waiting for forensic material and documents confirming the complainant’s age. Prosecutor Lawrence Gangarahwe told the court: “We are waiting for a forensic examination report and documents that prove the age of the complainant. The state is not opposed to release of accused on bail.”
Magistrate Jesse Kufa granted Chitsama US$500 bail. The conditions included surrendering his passport, remaining at his stated address, not interfering with State witnesses and reporting to police every Friday. The case was initially remanded to August 7.
At an August court appearance, prosecutors said they were still waiting for a forensic report, and the matter was deferred to September 25. The account presented by the State at that stage described the alleged incident as taking place on July 20 after the complainant and a friend went to Avondale, where Chitsama was recording music. The girl was expected to feature in a music video, according to the case summary presented in court.
The State alleged that the friend left after the recording session and that Chitsama then took the girl to a place in Hatfield where he was staying and working. Prosecutors said he took her to a room and threatened her. They also alleged that after the incident, a man arranged transport for her to return to Avondale, where she met her aunt. The aunt accompanied her to make a police report, leading to Chitsama’s arrest. These details were the State’s account of the charge before it was withdrawn.
The defence letter disputed the complainant’s account and made separate claims about what led to the police report. It also referred to a witness it said could provide relevant information. The withdrawal announcement did not give a public, point-by-point response to those arguments or explain which pieces of evidence led prosecutors to conclude that the case could not proceed.
Chitsama was released on bail while investigations continued through the early court appearances. In July, prosecutors told the court that they were waiting for a forensic report and proof of the complainant’s age. The October 27 letter then set out the defence’s objections to the medical material and witness accounts. By November 5, the State had withdrawn the charge before plea, citing insufficient evidence.
The change from a pending court case to a withdrawn charge marks the latest turn in a matter that had been remanded several times since the musician’s arrest. The withdrawal ended the prosecution of the charge at that appearance. The complainant’s identity has not been disclosed in the court reporting.
The July bail hearing and prosecutor’s remarks are recorded in the report on Chitsama’s release on bail. The later adjournment while the State awaited forensic material is described in the August court update, while the November 5 court report sets out the defence letter and the State’s decision to withdraw the charge.