Trial of Walter Mzembi: former tourism minister opened his defence from prison in the “TV screens” case
Former Zimbabwean Minister of Tourism and Hospitality and former head of diplomacy
Dr Walter Mzembi on 3 March 2026 formally presented his defence for the first time before the High Court in Harare, after months in custody and proceedings that in the public eye dragged on for almost nine months. The case, often described in local media and court records as the “TV screens case”, has become one of the country’s most closely watched anti-corruption trials because it brings together questions of management of state assets, the relationship between politics and major religious communities, and a broader debate about how justice is administered in Zimbabwe in cases that reach back to the era of Robert Mugabe’s government.
What Mzembi is accused of
The core of the allegations concerns four large LED public viewing systems (Public Viewing Area – PVA), bought with state money ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when South Africa hosted the tournament. According to the prosecution, between 2011 and 2014 Mzembi, using his position as minister, enabled equipment that was meant to serve the public and state programmes to be transferred for use to private religious organisations without the required procedures and without the consent of the Ministry of Finance (Treasury). Publicly available reports state that the value of the four disputed systems is about
US$200,000, while the background to the case mentions a broader procurement package estimated at
about US$2 million for a total of 40 screens intended for fan zones and tourism promotion.
The indictment lists as recipients of the equipment the
United Family International Church in Harare, led by preacher Emmanuel Makandiwa, then
Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries of preacher Walter Magaya, and the
Zion Christian Church in Masvingo. The state prosecution, with the support of investigators from the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), argues that state property cannot be “given away” or permanently handed over to private entities without a proper process, a documented decision and financial consent, and that the conduct in this case amounted to an abuse of public office and caused harm to the tourism portfolio.
Key legal dispute: “donation” or “loan”
One of the most important points in the proceedings – and a reason why trials in Zimbabwe often go beyond the boundaries of a classic criminal process – is the question of how to legally qualify the transfer of the equipment. In earlier stages of the proceedings, some witnesses, including senior officials of the state administration, testified that ministers are generally not “accounting responsible persons” for ministry assets, but that permanent secretaries (Permanent Secretaries) hold that role as “accounting officers”. Under that interpretation, a minister may give political direction, but the formal responsibility for recording, safeguarding and disposing of assets and for implementing prescribed procedures lies with the civil service.
The defence builds its key argument precisely on that dividing line: Mzembi claims it was not a permanent donation, but a
temporary loan within the framework of a state policy to develop “religious tourism”, and that after the transfer the equipment remained recorded as state property. Reports from the hearing state that the court was presented with asset registers of the Ministry of Tourism from which, according to the defence, it follows that the PVA systems were still entered after 2014 as property of the state, which could support the thesis that there was no “alienation” of the assets. The prosecution, on the other hand, stresses that the mere fact that private churches received and retained the equipment, without appropriate consent and a documented procedure, is a sufficiently strong indication that this was an impermissible disposition.
How the court reached the defence: request for discharge rejected
The turning point came in mid-February 2026, when the High Court rejected Mzembi’s application to be discharged at the close of the prosecution case. Judge
Benjamin Chikowero concluded that the prosecution had presented enough elements for a prima facie case and that the accused must answer why state equipment ended up with private churches and whether the prescribed procedures were followed. In the reasons reported by the media, it is stated that “there is evidence on record that calls for an answer from the accused”, with the emphasis that the property was not the personal property of the accused and that its disposition required following procedures.
By the court’s decision, the defence was given the opportunity on 3 and 4 March 2026 to present its version of events. It was on 3 March that Mzembi, according to reports from the hearing, began to present his defence directly for the first time, with the continuation scheduled for the following day.
Defence from prison: political context and Mzembi’s version of events
Mzembi returned to the courtroom as a detainee, after being arrested in June 2025 upon returning to Zimbabwe from abroad and after several unsuccessful bail applications. His supporters and part of the international tourism community publicly expressed support, claiming the proceedings had turned into a symbol of a political settling of scores with figures from the era before the change of power in 2017. Critics, however, point out that this is a test of the credibility of anti-corruption institutions and that in a state with prolonged economic difficulties it must be clarified how public money and assets were managed.
In his defence, Mzembi, according to reports, began with a broader account of work in the Ministry of Tourism after 2009, when the portfolio was separated from the Ministry of Environment and when, he claims, it was practically “built from scratch”. He stated that the ministry then had a very small number of officials and that his task was to design a strategy for tourism recovery during a period of political crisis and after controversial land reforms that worsened the international perception of the country. He particularly highlighted work during the
Government of National Unity (GNU), when ZANU-PF and the MDC shared power and public policies often went through complex compromises.
In that context, Mzembi claims that the public fan-zone and PVA screen project was part of a broader state branding and promotion strategy, originating from a government body known as the
Sports, Tourism, Image and Communications Task Force (STIC) and later confirmed through the cabinet. In his interpretation, the tourism portfolio was given the role of implementing ministry for establishing fan zones across the country, and the idea was to link sport, public gatherings and tourism promotion.
Why the screens ended up with churches
According to Mzembi’s defence, some of the equipment arrived late and was not used to its full extent during the 2010 World Cup, after which the government sought a plan for further use. Then, he claims, the idea developed to encourage mass gatherings through a “religious tourism” programme that can generate travel, overnight stays and spending – that is, classic tourism effects. Mzembi reportedly emphasises in court that the difference between a donation and a loan is decisive: a loan implies that the asset remains on the state’s books, and the user assumes an obligation to safeguard and manage the equipment.
Within the same framework, the defence states that the three religious communities were selected because of the expected large number of participants and the potential to attract visitors from within the country and abroad. Reports mention that Mzembi claimed the decisions were “cabinet business” and that some handovers of equipment were carried out by other ministers as well, including then Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa (now president), and then Minister Ignatius Chombo, which, according to the defence, would indicate that this was not a personal initiative by one man.
Argument about procedure: where is the line between an administrative mistake and a criminal offence
One of the most sensitive parts of the proceedings is the question of whether the possible absence of the Ministry of Finance’s consent should be treated as a criminal offence or as an administrative lapse within the state administration. Mzembi claims that a minister, when receiving a political directive from the president or cabinet, can launch a programme, while formal approvals and documentation are completed through the machinery of the civil service, including permanent secretaries, internal audits and usual oversight mechanisms. He mentions as an important circumstance the fact that, according to his statements, for several years internal and external audits did not flag the disputed transactions, which the defence interprets as an indication that the administrative system at the time operated with tacit approval or at least without a clear warning that it was an irregularity.
The prosecution, however, claims the opposite: ZACC investigators state that checks of the documentation established that for some other loans or transfers of equipment there were consents and written terms from the Ministry of Finance, whereas in the case of the three churches no such consent was found. Some reports also state that representatives of the churches confirmed that they still possess the equipment, which is an additional element for the prosecution in proving that the property was effectively removed from state control.
Constitutional issue and the 2023 law: can a stricter evidentiary standard be applied
In addition to the debate about procedure, the case also carries a layer of constitutional argumentation. Publicly available analyses highlight that the defence invokes the principle prohibiting retroactive criminal liability: if the legal norm defining the elements of the offence was changed in 2023, the question arises under which standard actions from the 2011–2014 period are assessed. Some commentators note that this raises the question of legal certainty, because constitutional guarantees protect citizens’ right not to be convicted for acts that at the time of commission were not a criminal offence in the form in which they are alleged today.
On the other hand, the court so far, at least according to available reports, has tended to allow these issues to be argued through a full hearing, including the defence, rather than stopping the matter on procedural grounds. That is precisely why the defence days are crucial: they should show whether the transfer of the equipment really was part of official policy and collective decision-making, or whether the prosecution is right when it argues that the accused must have known that state-owned property cannot be handed to private entities without strictly prescribed steps.
The bigger picture: tourism, the country’s reputation and trust in institutions
The Mzembi case is no longer only a personal legal battle; it has spilled over into a debate about Zimbabwe’s reputation as a tourist destination and about the stability of the rule of law. While the state emphasises safety, natural attractions and investment opportunities in international campaigns, the fact that a former symbol of tourism diplomacy remains in custody for months before finally presenting his defence becomes a topic beyond the country as well. In the tourism sector, this is often viewed through the lens of “risk perception”: investors and travellers look not only at natural beauty, but also political stability, predictability of institutions and the way disputes are resolved.
In the domestic public, the case highlights the tension between the need to criminally prosecute abuses and the issue of selectivity. After 2017, Zimbabwe has repeatedly announced strengthening anti-corruption measures and pursuing cases from previous periods, but practice is often accompanied by suspicions of political motivation. A trial in which the accused is a well-known face of the former власти, and a key part of the story includes three large charismatic churches, further increases interest and sensitivity.
What follows after the first day of the defence
After Mzembi began presenting his defence on 3 March 2026, the continuation of proceedings before the High Court is expected on 4 March. At that stage, it will be crucial whether the defence succeeds in substantiating claims of a cabinet decision, a presidential directive and the status of the equipment as “loaned” property that remained in state registers. The prosecution, on the other hand, will seek to show that formal procedures were absent, that the lack of the Ministry of Finance’s consent was known or must have been known to the accused, and that this resulted in damage or at least a serious risk to lawful management of public resources.
Whatever the outcome, the proceedings will remain an important indicator: for part of the public it is a test of judicial independence and the consistency of anti-corruption policy, and for the tourism sector and international observers a measure of how capable Zimbabwe is of conducting sensitive processes in a transparent and predictable manner.
Sources:- NewsDay Zimbabwe – report on the court decision that Mzembi must present his defence and the continuation of the hearing on 3–4 March 2026. (link)- The Herald (Zimpapers) – report on the start of the trial and the charges related to four LED screens and the approval procedure (link)- Africa Briefing – analysis of legal issues, including arguments on non-retroactivity and the constitutional article prohibiting retroactive punishment (link)- Nehanda Radio – trial report on testimony that ministers are not accounting responsible persons, the role of permanent secretaries, and Ministry of Finance consent (link)- eTurboNews – report from the first day of the defence on 3 March 2026, including Mzembi’s claims about STIC, fan zones and the difference between a loan and a donation (link)
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 2 hours ago