Nyore Madzianike Senior Court Reporter
Henrietta Rushwaya will remain in custody until October 30 when magistrate Mr Ngoni Nduna is expected to rule on the State’s application to withdraw its bail consent against her in the matter in which she is alleged to have attempted to smuggle gold to Dubai through the Robert Gabriel Mugabe International Airport on Monday.
The State had yesterday consented to granting Rushwaya $90 000 bail coupled with other conditions. In its application, the State said Rushwaya will not suffer any prejudice as the court had not made any decision regarding granting her bail.
“This is an organised plan to commit crime in the manner in which the execution of the offence was carried out.
“When the accused person approached the exit point, the closed circuit television (CCTV) that mans that area were switched off and her clearance took four minutes from the time she arrived at the airport.
“The net of the syndicate is actually wider hence upon taking note of that, we have enlarged the scope of the investigation and we expect more suspects to be brought to court tomorrow.
“There is also evidence that was availed to the effect that the accused tried to bribe two officers who had discovered the offence,” said Mr Darudzo Ziyaduma for the State.
He said other personnel involved in assisting in the smuggling of gold included a member of the Central Intelligence Organisation and another masquerading as a member of the same organisation.
“The net is wider than earlier thought. Hence the decision to withdraw the consent. Additionally, the source where the gold was obtained and its intended destinations are now part of investigations,” said Mr Ziyaduma.
Rushwaya’s lawyer Mr Tapson Dzvetero opposed to the application.
“There is a directive by the court which is outstanding directed to the State to furnish the court reasons why they made concession to the bail. That order had not been complied with by the State.
“The State did not furnish the court with reasons why the State had conceded to bail yesterday.
“That is the starting point. The State should have started by saying why it had consented to bail and that is what they had been directed by the court. Instead of complying by the court order, the State is now making a fresh order. In other words, the State is approaching the court with dirty hands. The State is clearly in contempt of court to give reasons why they consented. The State must purge its contempt first,” said.