A South African police officer has denied facilitating a financial settlement in the Mugabe shooting case.
Colonel CJ Raj testified at the Alexandra Magistrate’s Court on Friday. He rejected claims linking him to any agreement between the accused and Sipho Mahlangu.
Furthermore, his testimony contradicted the defence team’s submissions. The defence claimed compensation occurred with his knowledge.
However, Colonel Raj firmly denied any involvement in such arrangements. He also confirmed that police continue searching for the firearm.
“Based on the attempted murder, a firearm was used to commit this crime; we are still looking for this firearm,” Raj said.
Additionally, he stated the accused showed no cooperation with investigators.
He said the pair had “shown no remorse” by refusing to assist police in tracing the weapon.
Charges and Legal Positions Intensify
Meanwhile, the case continues to raise serious legal concerns. Bellarmine Mugabe admitted illegal presence in South Africa.
He also admitted pointing a firearm, although his defence claims it was a toy gun.
In contrast, Tobias Matonhodze pleaded guilty to attempted murder and defeating justice.
The charges stem from a February shooting in Hyde Park, Johannesburg. The victim, Sipho Mahlangu, suffered two gunshots to the back.
Although both men were present, only Matonhodze admitted to the shooting.
Defence Pushes for Financial Resolution
Meanwhile, the defence has proposed a financial settlement to resolve the case.
Lawyer Laurence Hodes argued that both accused could pay a substantial fine.
“Should this court be inclined to impose a fine, albeit a hefty fine… both accused are in a position to pay as they have the money set aside,” Hodes argued.
He added that payment could occur quickly, ensuring closure.
Furthermore, lawyer Sinenhlanhla Mnguni dismissed claims that Matonhodze is protecting Mugabe.
“Ultimately, the parties are at liberty to plead to the charges put to them, and those pleas are entered freely and voluntarily by each accused,” Mnguni said.
He warned that alternative claims would “sensationalise the matter”.
Finally, the court postponed the case for further investigation into the missing firearm and compensation claims.