\n<\/p>\n
Top SA Cop Throws Chatunga Mugabe Under The Bus \u2026<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
By A Correspondent \u2013 A senior South African police officer has distanced himself from claims that he played any role in facilitating a payout deal involving Bellarmine Chatunga Mugabe, his co-accused Tobias Matonhodze, and the victim of a February shooting incident.<\/p>\n
While testifying at the Alexandra Magistrate\u2019s Court on Friday, investigating officer Colonel CJ Raj dismissed suggestions that he facilitated or had knowledge of any financial arrangement between the accused and the complainant, Sipho Mahlangu.<\/p>\n
His testimony directly challenged the version presented by Mugabe\u2019s legal team, which had indicated that compensation discussions took place with the officer\u2019s awareness.<\/p>\n
Raj told the court that no such agreement had been handled through him and emphasized that the investigation remains incomplete, particularly with regard to the weapon used in the shooting. \u201cBased on the attempted murder, a firearm was used to commit this crime; we are still looking for this firearm,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He further criticized the conduct of the accused, stating they had \u201cshown no remorse\u201d by failing to cooperate with investigators in locating the firearm, despite both being present when the incident occurred.<\/p>\n
The case continues to attract attention due to the seriousness of the charges. Mugabe has acknowledged being in South Africa without proper documentation and admitted to pointing what his defence claims was a \u201ctoy gun.\u201d<\/p>\n
In contrast, Matonhodze has pleaded guilty to more severe offences, including attempted murder and defeating the course of justice.<\/p>\n
The charges stem from a violent episode in February, when Sipho Mahlangu, a security guard, was shot twice in the back at a property in Hyde Park, Johannesburg. Although both accused were at the scene, Matonhodze has taken responsibility for the shooting.<\/p>\n
In court, defence lawyer Laurence Hodes argued for a financial penalty instead of a custodial sentence, stating: \u201cShould this court be inclined to impose a fine, albeit a hefty fine\u2026 both accused are in a position to pay as they have the money set aside.\u201d He added that such an outcome could bring \u201cfinality\u201d to the matter, with payment made promptly and travel arrangements back to Zimbabwe finalized shortly after.<\/p>\n
Another defence lawyer, Sinenhlanhla Mnguni, pushed back against claims that Matonhodze was shielding Mugabe.<\/p>\n
\u201cUltimately, the parties are at liberty to plead to the charges put to them, and those pleas are entered freely and voluntarily by each accused,\u201d she said, warning that alternative interpretations would merely \u201csensationalise the matter.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court has postponed proceedings to allow further investigations, particularly into the missing firearm and the alleged compensation discussions involving the victim.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t<\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div>\n
\n