DNA Evidence Dispute Takes Center Stage in Magaya Rape Trial

Harare, Zimbabwe | The ongoing legal battle involving Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries leader Walter Magaya reached a critical tipping point this Thursday, as the cleric centered his defense on the “unconstitutional” handling of DNA evidence.

Appearing before the Harare Magistrates Court, Magaya argued that the state’s management of biological forensics and witness statements has been so compromised that the matter must be referred to the Constitutional Court.

Allegations of Forced Testing and Tampering

Taking to the witness stand, Magaya leveled serious accusations against the prosecution, claiming that his right to a fair trial has been fundamentally undermined. The core of his testimony focused on two major points:

1. Coerced Sampling: Magaya alleged he was forced to undergo DNA testing at a local hospital under duress.

2. Statement Manipulation: He claimed the prosecution tampered with witness statements to align with the forensic narrative they were building.

Magaya’s legal team argues that these actions represent a breach of constitutional safeguards, insisting that the High Court cannot proceed until the Constitutional Court rules on the legality of the State’s conduct.

The State’s Rebuttal: “Inconsistent Demands”

The State has hit back at these claims, painting Magaya’s focus on the DNA evidence as a calculated contradiction. According to the prosecution, the cleric is playing a “double game” with the forensic data:

The prosecution maintains that these requests are merely a strategy to delay the trial, which involves allegations from three complainants dating back to 2013.

What’s Next?

The DNA evidence saga is far from over. Magaya is also facing separate allegations involving four other women, where he is employing a similar strategy of citing constitutional breaches regarding evidence handling.

The PHD Ministries leader is expected to continue his submissions this Friday. The court’s decision on whether to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court will hinge largely on whether the “DNA dispute” is viewed as a genuine rights violation or a procedural technicality.