BIKITA West MP Munyaradzi Kereke’s defence witness, Taurai Bwanaisa, yesterday faced a torrid time on the witness stand while giving evidence in support of the legislator, who is accused of raping and indecently assaulting his two minor nieces sometime in 2010.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Kereke is pleading not guilty to the charges, claiming he had been framed up by his political and business rivals. However, Bwanaisa experienced a difficult time on the witness stand as he attempted to defend his former boss, giving contradicting statements some of which he attributed to forgetfulness due to passage of time.
While Kereke is being accused of raping his then 11-year-old niece at gunpoint at his Vainona house on a date unknown to the prosecution, but in August 2010, Bwanaisa told regional magistrate Noel Mupeiwa, Kereke could not have done so because at the material time he was at his house in Mandara.
Bwanaisa said he was positive Kereke was in the house at the time the rape incident allegedly occurred because he (Bwanaisa) had the keys to the house.
He said Kereke could not have managed to go out without someone opening the door for him.
He further told the court Kereke had a single house in Mandara and a single car, but his claims were dismissed by the State.
Private prosecutor Charles Warara asked Bwanaisa how many keys he had in his possession since he had earlier said he was manning the premises with his colleague, Norest Ndoro.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Initially, Bwanaisa said he had a single key and Ndoro had another one, but later changed his statement to say he had two sets of keys.
Asked to explain why Kereke did not have keys to his own house, Bwanaisa said it was “a security measure”.
As the cross-examination continued, Warara asked Bwanaisa why he specifically remembered what happened on August 21, 22 and 24, 2010, but failing to remember what happened on the other dates.
His answer was that police had asked him to tell them what happened during the said dates.
In his evidence, Bwanaisa told the court he had a register in which he recorded the times when Kereke arrived at his Mandara house on August 21 and 22, 2010, but surprisingly, the recorded times for the two days were exactly the same. He said Kereke, on the two mentioned days, arrived at 9pm and then left at 10am the following day.
“Are you telling the court that he (Kereke) maintained the same pattern for two days, arriving at and leaving the premises at exact times?” Warara asked, to which Bwanaisa responded in the affirmative.
The prosecutor further asked Bwanaisa why Kereke would need to be booked for coming and going out of his own house, to which he responded the MP had simply given the instruction for the guards to do so.
Warara told Bwanaisa there was no such register in place, but the one he was referring to had been made up by Kereke since he had ample time to do so as he had not been arrested and wanted the information to tally with his defence.
Bwanaisa was also cornered on the number of times Kereke’s brother, Claitos, visited the Mandara premises. In his statement, he said once, but later changed to say twice, contrary to what his colleague had earlier told the court.
