“Suspicion Is Not Evidence” – High Court Frees Man Jailed 10 Years For US$2.7 Million ZB Bank Money Heist

US$2.7 Million ZB Bank Heist: High Court Acquits Man Over Lack of Evidence

A man jailed for 10 years over the US$2.7 million ZB Bank cash heist has been freed by the High Court. Judges ruled that his conviction was a “gross miscarriage of justice” after noting that suspicion alone is not enough to convict anyone because it is evidence.

Zimlive reports that Tendai Zuze, sentenced in 2023, was accused of participating in the country’s biggest-ever cash robbery near Nyabira. However, two High Court judges quashed his conviction, saying the prosecution failed to produce solid evidence.

Insults No Longer a Crime: High Court Declares Criminal Insult Law Unconstitutional

High Court Judges Slam “Circumstantial Evidence”

Zuze had been convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including US$35,000 recovered from him and the purchase of a Honda Fit two days after the heist.

It was also said that his wife’s silver Lexus passed through the Nyabira tollgate around the same time as the ZB Bank cash van.

However, High Court judges Justice Happias Zhou and Justice Benjamin Chikowero said these claims were not enough to prove guilt.

“Suspicion is not evidence,” they ruled. “The trial court grossly erred in predicating the appellant’s conviction on colourless circumstantial evidence while ignoring direct evidence… which clearly exonerated the appellant.”

The judges emphasised that ZB Bank had failed to record serial numbers for the stolen money. As a result, there was no way to prove the US$35,000 recovered from Zuze was part of the heist.

Stokvel and Mining Money

During his trial, Zuze said US$10,000 of the money belonged to his wife from her Stokvel savings. The remaining cash, he claimed, came from his work as a small-scale miner.

The appeal judges noted that this explanation was never disproved by the state.

“The state did not controvert the appellant’s explanation that he was a small-scale miner given to obtaining and spending huge sums of money,” they wrote.

They also criticised the trial court’s reliance on Zuze’s phone records. Although the logs placed him near Nyabira at the time, the evidence did not prove he participated in the robbery.

“The onus remained on the state to prove that the appellant participated in the robbery and how he so participated,” the judges said. “Instead of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the state did the exact opposite.”

A Gross Miscarriage of Justice

The judges concluded that the trial court’s approach was a serious misdirection.

“At its highest, even taken together with the other circumstances listed in this judgement, the fact that the appellant purchased a Honda Fit vehicle two days after the commission of the offence may have raised eyebrows. But suspicion is not evidence.”

In their final ruling, the judges said: