Kwekwe Gay Couple Deny Sleeping Together
TWO Kwekwe men who are jointly accused of staying together as a couple and having anal sexual intercourse before a fallout, are now seeking to quash the charges.
James Mapawa (40) and Praise Mpofu (25) are being jointly charged with sodomy after reportedly staying together for three months. Mapawa reported the matter to the police after discovering that Mpofu was a man.
Where Africa and Zimbabwe Stand on Trans
The two had reportedly met in June after Mapawa proposed love to Mpofu who was dressed and pretended to be a woman.
But after staying together for two months, Mapawa claimed that he was not aware that his partner was male and reported the matter to police.
The two were however jointly charged with sodomy, charges which they are seeking to quash.
The two appeared before Kwekwe magistrate Itai Kagwere facing sodomy charges and were released on $100 000 bail each.
In its initial outline the State alleges that:
On 7th September around 11PM, Mapawa came to Kwekwe Central police station reporting that they had a misunderstanding between him and Mpofu over an issue that Mpofu was male not female since they had stayed together for as a couple for two months as husband and wife and had anal sexual intercourse.
Through their lawyer, Artwel Chinamatira of Masawi and Partners, Mapawa is now denying ever making such a report to the police.
The averments are thus intended to embarrass Mapawa and prejudice his defense that he never engaged in sodomy as alleged.
The two had a misunderstanding over something else and they never had anal sexual intercourse as alleged at all.
The two challenged the State to outline alleged facts and not alleged confessions which are being denied by the accused person.
Kwekwe Gay Couple Deny Sleeping Together
Clearly, if the State outline contains an averment that Mapawa reported that he had anal sexual intercourse with Mpofu, this is highly prejudicial to both accused who are denying the same.
The State outline must allege facts and not alleged confessions which confessions the accused persons deny.
The State should use facts, not allegations made by Mapawa.
 A duty to prove one’s guilt rests squarely and fairly on the shoulder of the State.
It should allege and prove its own case without making reference to alleged utterances or reports from the accused persons.
Wherefore, Chinamatira prayed that the State outline be quashed.
The averments contained in the State outline will prejudice the accused’s defense to the effect that they never stayed as husband and wife as alleged, they never engaged in anal sexual intercourse and that Mapara never reported a case of sodomy as alleged.
The State is yet to respond.
