Mugabe Shooting Case | Compensation paid, missing firearm remains a key concern

The Alexandra Magistrate’s Court has heard that the victim in the February shooting involving the son of the late former Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe, has received substantial financial compensation, as sentencing arguments continue.

Investigating officer testimony revealed that the victim, Sipho Mahlangu, has already been paid R250,000, with an additional R150,000 expected, bringing the total compensation to R400,000.

The officer on Friday clarified that he only verified this information after meeting Mahlangu for the first time this week and was not involved in the initial compensation discussions between the parties.

Bellarmine Mugabe and co-accused Tobias Matonhodze who appeared in the Alexandra Magistrate’s Court on Friday, have pleaded guilty to several charges, including attempted murder.

Despite this, the officer warned the court that a missing firearm used in the shooting remains a serious concern.

Extensive police efforts including K-9 units, divers searching a swimming pool, and a full property sweep have failed to recover the weapon. Authorities fear it may still be in circulation and could pose a threat to public safety.

The State argues that the compensation paid should not overshadow the gravity of the offence. Prosecutor, Lufuno Maphiri, is pushing for direct imprisonment on multiple charges, including attempted murder and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Maphiri stressed that financial restitution does not diminish the severity of a violent offence, particularly given that the firearm used has not been recovered.

The defence, however, has pushed back against the State’s position. Defence lawyer, Sinenhlanhla Mnguni, told the court they had anticipated the call for a harsh sentence and had already factored it into their submissions.

Mnguni also challenged the State’s position on the missing firearm, arguing that the prosecution has not proven that the accused were responsible for its disappearance.

He pointed to the chaotic nature of the scene, where multiple individuals were present, maintaining that the burden of proof remains with the State.

While the defence is advocating for a financial penalty and a suspended sentence, the State insists only direct imprisonment would reflect the seriousness of the crime.

They will remain in custody until their next court appearance on 29 April for sentencing.

Written by: Lebohang Ndashe