BULAWAYO – Serious questions are being raised over the administration of justice after the High Court granted bail to a mine security guard accused of fatally shooting a man, while denying bail to his employer, Italian-born businessman Francesco Marconati.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) expressly conceded that Marconati should be released.
The sharply contrasting outcomes delivered by the same judge on the same day have fuelled claims that factors beyond the court record may be influencing the matter, particularly given Marconati’s significant mining interests in Matabeleland North.
On December 19, 2025, Justice Ngoni Nduna of the Bulawayo High Court granted bail to Mbekezeli Ngwabi, the employee alleged to have pulled the trigger on a group of trespassers at Duration Gold Limited (DGL) Mine in Inyathi, killing one man.
Ngwabi was released on US$800 bail. The NPA, represented by S Phiri, did not oppose bail, and the court imposed routine conditions without identifying any compelling reasons for continued detention.
Yet on the same day, Justice Nduna dismissed Marconati’s appeal against refusal of bail, keeping the 66-year-old businessman in custody, notwithstanding an unusually strong written concession by the NPA.
In its formal response to the bail appeal, the prosecution went beyond neutrality and openly repudiated the magistrate’s findings, stating: “The respondent concedes that the court a quo misdirected itself in finding that the appellant was a flight risk in the absence of evidence supporting such a conclusion.”
The NPA further told the High Court that the magistrate’s conclusions were unsupported by facts placed before the court.
“There was no evidence placed before the court to demonstrate that the appellant had previously absconded or attempted to evade justice.”
Crucially, the State acknowledged that the legal threshold for continued detention had not been met.
“The respondent is unable to point to any compelling or exceptional circumstances justifying the continued incarceration of the appellant,” the NPA said.
Far from opposing bail, the prosecution affirmatively supported Marconati’s release, adding that it has “no objection to the appellant being admitted to bail on conditions that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interests of justice.”
“In the circumstances, the respondent respectfully submits that the appeal ought to succeed and that the appellant be admitted to bail,” it added.
Justice Nduna acknowledged this position in his ruling, noting that: “This application is not opposed by the State, which filed submissions consenting to his admission to bail. The state is of the view that the court a quo erred in its handling of the matter and cannot support the conclusion reached therein.”
He also cited settled authority, including Attorney-General v Chiwashira & Others 1994 (1) ZLR 1 (HC), which held that state consent to bail should weigh heavily in favour of release, and Oscar Zenda v The State HB 101/17, which warned against courts “descending into the arena.”
Despite this, Justice Nduna ruled that the appeal court was bound by the magistrate’s earlier findings that Marconati was a flight risk with a propensity to commit offences, concluding.
“When a court finds that an applicant is a flight risk… that is the end of the matter,” Justice Nduna concluded.
The appeal was dismissed.
Adding to the controversy, Marconati’s lawyers, Madzima & Company, wrote to the Registrar of the High Court on December 23, 2025, complaining that the court order and reasons for judgement had not been availed, despite assurances given in open court that they would be ready by December 21.
The lawyers argued that Marconati had been in custody since December 9, 2025, and that timely access to the order and reasons was vital to properly advise their client on further legal remedies.
Senior lawyer Advocate Lewis Uriri, who appeared for Marconati, argued that the law was settled: “Once the state has made a concession, the court has no choice in the matter, the accused must be released.”
Legal analysts note that Ngwabi’s case reflects precisely that orthodox approach, with bail granted following a prosecution concession and without the court identifying extraordinary risks.
While no allegations of interference appear in the court papers, individuals familiar with the matter allege that Marconati’s continued detention may benefit powerful business and political interests seeking leverage over his gold mining operations in Inyathi and Bubi districts in Matabeleland North.
Marconati’s other business footprint includes Eagle Italian Shoes, Eagle Italian Leather, a lodge in Mana Pools, and a company called Strengthened Investments. His companies have previously supplied the Zimbabwe National Army, including boots.
None of these commercial realities featured in the bail rulings, yet they form the backdrop to what many describe as an extraordinary legal outcome.
“The optics are terrible,” said one lawyer. “When the state itself says bail should be granted, and the court refuses anyway, while freeing the alleged shooter, public confidence inevitably suffers.”
ZimLive understands one of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s sons has formed an alliance with Marconati’s former girlfriend and ex-business partner, Li Song, to elbow the Italian out of his mines in Matabeleland North.
Song, a Chinese national and controversial figure, was once reported to have been deported from the country after she was linked to poaching syndicates using cyanide, but she maintains strong links with powerful actors in the Zimbabwean state.
The post Bail disparity as alleged shooter walks free, while employer remains jailed appeared first on Zimbabwe News Now.