Three police officers who were accused of brutally assaulting schoolchildren at Mahetshe Primary School in Maphisa, Matobo District, have been acquitted after the Kezi Magistrates Court ruled that the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Delivering his judgment on October 23, 2025 Kezi magistrate, Busani Sibanda said the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and poor investigation, making it impossible for the court to convict the accused persons. “The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty.
The accused are given the benefit of doubt and are acquitted,” Magistrate Sibanda ruled. The three police officers were facing charges of assaulting 12 learners, allegedly using open hands, switches and cables during a school awareness campaign in May this year. The alleged assault reportedly caused injuries to the pupils.However, the court found the evidence presented by the State to be unreliable, contradictory and insufficient to link the accused directly to the alleged assaults.
Magistrate Sibanda criticised the quality of the investigation, saying crucial exhibits such as the alleged switches used in the assault were not brought to court including the videos of the police officer committing the assault . “I must state the case was poorly investigated. If the switches existed, they needed to be brought to court.
[paywall]
If there were videos of the accused persons committing that offence, they needed to be brought to court,” he said. “As a result, the inescapable conclusion is that the State failed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed this offence. The State itself admitted that it did not manage to prove the guilt of the accused persons.” The magistrate said the testimonies of the 17 State witnesses were inconsistent and lacked credibility.
Some witnesses claimed the children were assaulted, while others said the pupils merely cried out of fear or embarrassment after being named and shamed by their peers. “Given the inconsistencies in the evidence of those who were directly at the scene, the court cannot help but conclude that they were economical with the truth. Their evidence was tailored to protect their interests rather than bear the truth,” Sibanda said.
“I must state that there is scarcity of evidence in this case. The testimony of the State witnesses is, in my view, inadequate proof of the guilt of the accused.” He added that the contradictions between the State’s outline and the witnesses’ testimonies were fundamental and could not be ignored.
[/paywall]
