Pfeka condom: Mai Jeremaya agreed to have lula lula with one of them, her Best Friend reveals in court

Harare – In a dramatic turn of events in the rape trial of socialite Ashley Masendeke, popularly known as Mai Jeremaya, her close friend and key witness has made stunning claims in court, suggesting that Mai Jeremaya consented to sexual intercourse with one of the two accused men.

Thabo Blessing Dube and Martin Charlie stand accused of taking turns to rape Mai Jeremaya at a lodge in Harare on April 30. The duo have vehemently denied the allegations. However, the testimony of Ms Cythina Duringo, described as the “first person to be told” of the alleged assault, has cast a shadow of doubt over the prosecution’s case.

Ms Duringo told the court that Mai Jeremaya had initially disclosed to her that she had consensual intercourse with only one individual, contradicting her official statement in which she alleged being raped by both accused persons.

Adding another layer of complexity, Ms Duringo also denied Mai Jeremaya’s claims that she had attempted to perform an exorcism on her following the alleged incident. She further testified that Mai Jeremaya was distressed when her husband became aware of the matter, allegedly expressing a desire for the issue to remain a secret between them.

The court also heard that Mai Jeremaya pleaded with one of the two men suspected of gang raping her to use a condom just before she was allegedly raped at a lodge in Harare on April 30.

The social media star, whose real name is Ashley Masendeke, waived her right to anonymity, which is usually reserved for victims in sexual abuse cases, when she recorded a video and discussed the case on social media.

During her testimony, Ms Duringo revealed that Mai Jeremaya told her she had agreed to be intimate with one of the men because he was “talking to her nicely.”

“She told me that the two were taking her to their boss and when they got to the reception, they spent some time chatting and watching her skits. She told me that later on, someone directed her to a room that had two doors and one of her assailants went with her and the other one used the other door to get in.”

“She said that’s when she saw that it wasn’t an ordinary meeting, but just played along so that they wouldn’t hurt her as she had seen a gun,” said Ms Duringo.

She added that Mai Jeremaya said she played along and was comfortable with one of the two people, who was light in complexion as he was talking to her nicely. She said Mai Jeremaya agreed to stay with him in the room and consented to have sexual intercourse with him.

“She said the encounter was very long because she didn’t like it and there was someone who kept coming in and out of the room, which made her uncomfortable. She told me that after the encounter, she was given US$10, which she used to come back home,” said Ms Duringo.

Under cross-examination from the defence lawyers, Shepherd Makonde and George Manokore, Ms Duringo conceded that her recollection conflicted with both her initial report and Mai Jeremaya’s court testimony, admitting that it was difficult to ascertain which version was accurate.

Mr Makonde further asked: “She told the court that on the day in question, you wanted to exorcise her using snuff which you put in a pipe, is that correct?”

Ms Duringo told the court that Mai Jeremaya had lied on that aspect. She also confirmed that she was the one who told Mai Jeremaya’s husband about the alleged rape and it was supposed to be a secret between them.

She agreed with Mr Makonde that if she had not told Mai Jeremaya’s husband, after being asked not to, he would not have known.

The defence team has seized upon these discrepancies, arguing that the prosecution’s case lacks credibility and is marred by inconsistencies that cast reasonable doubt on the complainant’s testimony.

They submitted an application for discharge at the close of the State’s case, arguing that the case did not warrant continuation and that the accused should be discharged.

In contrast, Mai Jeremaya, during her testimony, painted a graphic picture of how she was raped and how the incident has destroyed her eight-year-old relationship with her partner.

She told the court that she started crying when she realised she was about to be raped by Charlie. Fear of her attacker forced her to remove her clothes, when Charlie removed his clothes, she pleaded with him to use condoms. Charlie allegedly fondled her and demanded that she should lick his private parts.

She also claimed that after being allegedly raped by the duo, she initially decided she was not going to tell anyone about her ordeal because she feared the backlash, including the embarrassment she would have to endure. One of her attackers scared her when he claimed he had access to some classified information and he would hunt her down and find her wherever she would hide.

She further testified that she suffered physically and has since been forced to rely on medication, including some which she reacted to, which makes it difficult for her to sleep. She now suffers from anxiety and although she was having challenges with her partner, before this incident, she feels the case has destroyed that partnership.

The duo, in their defence, claimed that Mai Jeremaya was the one who initiated the meeting via a text message to Charlie and denied the State’s claims that they contacted her first.

They told the court that Mai Jeremaya was picked up by Charlie in the Harare CBD and they proceeded to Eastlea where they picked up Dube and his girlfriend.

The group returned to the CBD to drop off Dube’s girlfriend and Charlie went to buy lunch leaving Dube and Mai Jeremaya in the car.

The duo claimed that while Charlie was away, Mai Jeremiah allegedly got a chance to speak privately with Dube and she revealed that she had recently separated from her husband and was desperate for money.

They told the court that she allegedly complimented Charlie’s car, a double cab truck, and his iPhone, describing him as “well-off” before she proposed an hour of consensual sex for a fee of US$20.

Dube told the court that he conveyed the message to Charlie and the parties agreed to engage in consensual sexual activity at a lodge for US$20.

Charlie said he drove to the lodge and Mai Jeremaya allegedly demanded for advance payment, which was given, and she voluntarily undressed, engaged in foreplay, including kissing and caressing Charlie, assisted him in wearing a condom, and assumed an active role during the consensual intercourse.

The duo told the court that after the sexual encounter, Mai Jeremaya allegedly demanded US$500, citing that she had given Charlie what she termed “extras” in that she had kissed and engaged in foreplay with him. Charlie told her that he couldn’t afford such an amount and she allegedly reduced it to US$300.

He again told her that she couldn’t afford it.

They told the court that Mai Jeremaya never expressed distress or lack of consent. They claimed that she later engaged controversial private investigator Tafadzwa Chidawa, who kidnapped them and their parents demanding US$500, which they refused to pay.

The duo claimed the that the rape allegations claimed from the failed extortion attempt.

Harare Magistrate has reserved judgement in the matter and postponed it to June 27, for the court to deliver a ruling on whether the accused will be discharged or put to their defence. The case continues to captivate the nation, raising complex questions about consent, credibility, and the impact of social media on legal proceedings.

Follow @MyZimbabweNews