PROPHETIC Healing and Deliverance leader Walter Magaya who is facing rape charges has filed a fresh application for referral to the Constitutional Court accusing the prosecution of violating his rights by trying to force the start of his trial against evidence of withdrawal of cases by some of the alleged victims.
Represented by Admire Rubaya and Everson Chatambudza, Magaya says the trial cannot start amid evidence of unfairness and wants the Appex Court to intervene.
In his founding affidavit Magaya argues that one of the alleged rape victims has written to the Prosecutor General through her lawyers indicating her wish to withdraw but the State insists on prosecuting him.
“I submit with respect that this process has become unconstitutional. The State which is aware that a false complaint was made and which has received a withdrawal of that complaint to that end, must not throw the matter to the court. That is an abdication of constitutional function.
“The complainant, expressly indicates her wish to withdraw and confirms that she has ad nauseum and repeatedly communicated her intention to the Prosecutor General and officers of the NPA. She particularly makes it clear that she has not been influenced to take a position.
“Notwithstanding this confirmatory communication, the state still wishes to take me to trial before this court on that count,” he argued.
The clergyman argues that the matter is now beyond legal with the prosecution seeking selfish agendas.
“I submit that the state’s intentions are tainted. The state is in pursuit of nothing legal. It seeks to involve the criminal justice system in moral defilement. This in my submission would compromise the integrity of the criminal justice delivery system and would dishonour the administration of justice.
“The upshot of all this is that the state wants to abuse process at my expense and wishes to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with the law.
Magaya further alleges that the prosecution is interfering with investigations highlighting that the Chief Director Tendai Shonhayi told the court on January 26 2026 that she wanted to amend the statement of alleged rape victim based in Ireland.
He said he has been served with a new statement recorded on the 27th of February 2026 but has not been served with the the original statement which resulted in the State formulating an opinion that he was supposed to be arrested and placed on remand.
He also argues that the revelation by the Chief Director Shonhayi in court shows that the prosecution is not acting impartially as expected at law but is instead actively shaping the evidence it intends to use against him.
“If anything, the evidence is being made on the go. This is a clear usurpation of police investigative functions. A prosecution that shapes the evidence it intends to prosecute on cannot be said to be impartial, independent, fair, or lawful.
“The failure to disclose the original statement lodged by the alleged victim and the amended version, serving me instead with a belated statement dated 27 February 2026, further violates my right to a fair trial,” he argued.
Magaya further argues that DNA samples were taken against his will after the police on the instruction of Shonhayi clandestinely acquired a court order without his involvement or his lawyers.
He said the court order was obtained from a regional magistrate, Fadzai Mtombeni, who ordinarily does not deal with warrants of search and seizure since it is the domain of the Provincial Magistrate Vakai Chikwekwe.
He claims that Chikwekwe refused to entertain the application for the warrant in the absence of his lawyers and him.
He averred that the police on instruction from Shonhayi proceeded to Regional Magistrate Mtombeni who dealt with the application in his absence and without his representations.He said the results of the DNA have not been made known to him but the State wants to proceed with the trial without serving him with the DNA results.
“The manner in which the warrant was obtained ex parte, the forced extraction of my DNA, and the subsequent failure to disclose the results all point to a manifestly irregular process that is designed to prejudice me. I cannot prepare a proper defence when the State conceals evidence that itself deemed important enough to obtain through a court order.
“I pause to point out that the process sought to be activated by the state yields by its very nature the deprivation of my liberty. That deprivation is on the facts of this matter unlawful and is consequently of no validity,” he said.
