Man accused of strangling uncle over mercury deal denied bail

The High Court has refused bail to a man accused of murdering his uncle over a mercury deal, ruling that he failed to produce evidence to support his alibi and had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting his release pending trial.

Justice Vivian Ndlovu dismissed Winston Tinotenda Tsakasa’s bail application, finding that the State had placed before the court a substantial body of evidence linking him to the killing, including affidavits from witnesses, alleged admissions and exhibits reportedly recovered following indications made by the accused.

The judge said Tsakasa’s claim that he was at work when the murder occurred was unsupported by any documentary evidence or affidavits from his employer, colleagues or supervisors.

“The alleged alibi therefore remains unsupported,” Ndlovu said.

Tsakasa is accused of killing his uncle on May 7, 2026, following a dispute over money allegedly given to him to buy mercury.

According to the State, the deceased travelled from Banket to Norton to confront Tsakasa after he allegedly failed to deliver the mercury or refund the money.

The prosecution alleges that during the confrontation at Tsakasa’s residence, he assaulted and strangled his uncle in the presence of his co-accused, Medline Mashiri.

The State further alleges that the pair concealed the killing by placing the body in a white ton-bag, transporting it on a push cart and dumping it at a nearby dumpsite.

The deceased’s mobile phone was allegedly sold by Tsakasa but was later recovered by police.

In opposing bail, the State relied on affidavits from the deceased’s wife, family members and Mashiri, as well as a warned and cautioned statement in which Tsakasa allegedly admitted his involvement and explained how the murder was committed and concealed.

Ndlovu said the applicant failed to adequately respond to the detailed allegations in Mashiri’s affidavit and the evidence from the deceased’s wife, Joyce Kambanje, regarding the alleged mercury transaction.

The judge also questioned Tsakasa’s account of his relationship with Mashiri, whom he had described as a domestic worker.

The State alleged that the two were romantic partners living together and expecting a child.

“The applicant’s attempt to portray her merely as a domestic employee stands unrebutted in the face of the contrary affidavits placed before the court. That discrepancy negatively affects the applicant’s credibility,” Ndlovu said.

The State also raised concerns that Tsakasa could abscond, alleging that he had previously left South Africa while facing criminal charges there and that extradition proceedings could be pursued.

Although the judge said the South African allegations still had to be established through the appropriate legal processes, he held that they could not be disregarded when assessing the risk of abscondment.

Ndlovu said the court was not required at the bail stage to determine whether the prosecution would ultimately secure a conviction, but to establish whether exceptional circumstances justified release.

“The seriousness of the charge, coupled with the substantial body of evidence outlined by the respondent, including witness affidavits, alleged admissions, indications and recoveries, demonstrates that the State case cannot be dismissed as weak or speculative,” he said.

The court also rejected Tsakasa’s argument that he should be granted bail on the same basis as Mashiri, who had already been released.

Ndlovu said the two accused persons did not occupy the same position, noting that Tsakasa was alleged to be the principal offender while Mashiri’s alleged role was fundamentally different.

“The factors which justified her release cannot automatically be transposed to the applicant,” the judge said.

Tsakasa had argued that he was not a flight risk, citing his lack of previous convictions, fixed residence, family support and community ties. His mother had also filed an affidavit undertaking to accommodate and supervise him if released.

His lawyer, M M Sibanda, further argued that the State’s case was weak and largely based on assumptions and hearsay, while maintaining that Tsakasa had cooperated with investigations.

However, the court said hearsay evidence was admissible in bail proceedings under section 117A(4)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and could be considered when assessing whether release was in the interests of justice.

The judgment also noted that the applicant had previously withdrawn an earlier bail application after the State filed its opposing papers.

Ndlovu ultimately found that Tsakasa had failed to establish exceptional circumstances and that his release would not be in the interests of justice.

His application was dismissed, with the murder allegations still to be determined at trial.

The post Man accused of strangling uncle over mercury deal denied bail appeared first on NewZimbabwe.com.