The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) expressly conceded that Marconati should be released. The sharply contrasting outcomes delivered by the same judge on the same day have fuelled claims that factors beyond the court record may be influencing the matter, particularly given Marconati’s significant mining interests in Matabeleland North. On December 19, 2025, Justice Ngoni Nduna of the Bulawayo High Court granted bail to Mbekezeli Ngwabi, the employee alleged to have pulled the trigger on a group of trespassers at Duration Gold Limited (DGL) Mine in Inyathi, killing one man.
Ngwabi was released on US$800 bail. The NPA, represented by S Phiri, did not oppose bail, and the court imposed routine conditions without identifying any compelling reasons for continued detention. Yet on the same day, Justice Nduna dismissed Marconati’s appeal against refusal of bail, keeping the 66-year-old businessman in custody, notwithstanding an unusually strong written concession by the NPA.
In its formal response to the bail appeal, the prosecution went beyond neutrality and openly repudiated the magistrate’s findings, stating: “The respondent concedes that the court a quo misdirected itself in finding that the appellant was a flight risk in the absence of evidence supporting such a conclusion.” The NPA further told the High Court that the magistrate’s conclusions were unsupported by facts placed before the court. “There was no evidence placed before the court to demonstrate that the appellant had previously absconded or attempted to evade justice.” Crucially, the State acknowledged that the legal threshold for continued detention had not been met. “The respondent is unable to point to any compelling or exceptional circumstances justifying the continued incarceration of the appellant,” the NPA said.
[paywall]
Far from opposing bail, the prosecution affirmatively supported Marconati’s release, adding that it has “no objection to the appellant being admitted to bail on conditions that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.” “In the circumstances, the respondent respectfully submits that the appeal ought to succeed and that the appellant be admitted to bail,” it added. Justice Nduna acknowledged this position in his ruling, noting that: “This application is not opposed by the State, which filed submissions consenting to his admission to bail. The state is of the view that the court a quo erred in its handling of the matter and cannot support the conclusion reached therein.” He also cited settled authority, including Attorney-General v Chiwashira & Others 1994 (1) ZLR 1 (HC), which held that state consent to bail should weigh heavily in favour of release, and Oscar Zenda v The State HB 101/17, which warned against courts “descending into the arena.”
[/paywall]
