BULAWAYO
–
Serious
questions
are
being
raised
over
the
administration
of
justice
after
the
High
Court
granted
bail
to
a
mine
security
guard
accused
of
fatally
shooting
a
man,
while
denying
bail
to
his
employer,
Italian-born
businessman
Francesco
Marconati.
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.
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.”
Despite
this,
Justice
Nduna
ruled
that
the
appeal
court
was
bound
by
the
magistrate’s
earlier
findings
that
Marconati
was
a
flight
risk
with
a
propensity
to
commit
offences,
concluding.
“When
a
court
finds
that
an
applicant
is
a
flight
risk…
that
is
the
end
of
the
matter,”
Justice
Nduna
concluded.
The
appeal
was
dismissed.
Adding
to
the
controversy,
Marconati’s
lawyers,
Madzima
&
Company,
wrote
to
the
Registrar
of
the
High
Court
on
December
23,
2025,
complaining
that
the
court
order
and
reasons
for
judgement
had
not
been
availed,
despite
assurances
given
in
open
court
that
they
would
be
ready
by
December
21.
The
lawyers
argued
that
Marconati
had
been
in
custody
since
December
9,
2025,
and
that
timely
access
to
the
order
and
reasons
was
vital
to
properly
advise
their
client
on
further
legal
remedies.
Senior
lawyer
Advocate
Lewis
Uriri,
who
appeared
for
Marconati,
argued
that
the
law
was
settled:
“Once
the
state
has
made
a
concession,
the
court
has
no
choice
in
the
matter,
the
accused
must
be
released.”
Legal
analysts
note
that
Ngwabi’s
case
reflects
precisely
that
orthodox
approach,
with
bail
granted
following
a
prosecution
concession
and
without
the
court
identifying
extraordinary
risks.
While
no
allegations
of
interference
appear
in
the
court
papers,
individuals
familiar
with
the
matter
allege
that
Marconati’s
continued
detention
may
benefit
powerful
business
and
political
interests
seeking
leverage
over
his
gold
mining
operations
in
Inyathi
and
Bubi
districts
in
Matabeleland
North.
Marconati’s
other
business
footprint
includes
Eagle
Italian
Shoes,
Eagle
Italian
Leather,
a
lodge
in
Mana
Pools,
and
a
company
called
Strengthened
Investments.
His
companies
have
previously
supplied
the
Zimbabwe
National
Army,
including
boots.
None
of
these
commercial
realities
featured
in
the
bail
rulings,
yet
they
form
the
backdrop
to
what
many
describe
as
an
extraordinary
legal
outcome.
“The
optics
are
terrible,”
said
one
lawyer.
“When
the
state
itself
says
bail
should
be
granted,
and
the
court
refuses
anyway,
while
freeing
the
alleged
shooter,
public
confidence
inevitably
suffers.”
ZimLive
understands
one
of
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
sons
has
formed
an
alliance
with
Marconati’s
former
girlfriend
and
ex-business
partner,
Li
Song,
to
elbow
the
Italian
out
of
his
mines
in
Matabeleland
North.
Song,
a
Chinese
national
and
controversial
figure,
was
once
reported
to
have
been
deported
from
the
country
after
she
was
linked
to
poaching
syndicates
using
cyanide,
but
she
maintains
strong
links
with
powerful
actors
in
the
Zimbabwean
state.