HARARE – Embattled businessman Mike Chimombe, who has been in remand prison since June 2024, has suffered another legal blow after the Supreme Court upheld a decision to deny him bail, effectively prolonging his detention. Given the drawn-out nature of Chimombe’s bail application process, he could spend at least a year in pre-conviction detention, with his one-year mark approaching in June 2025.
The ruling, delivered on March 6, 2025, dismissed Chimombe’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant him bail, citing concerns over his likelihood to abscond, the severity of the fraud charges he faces, and the risk of interfering with witnesses.
Chimombe, who is at the center of a fraud case linked to the Presidential Goat-Pass-On Scheme, had initially been denied bail by a magistrate’s court in July 2024. The court found compelling reasons to keep him in custody, a decision later upheld by the High Court in January 2025. His latest attempt to secure bail through the Supreme Court has now been unsuccessful, as the judges agreed with the lower courts’ assessments.
The National Prosecuting Authority of Zimbabwe (NPA) confirmed the Supreme Court’s verdict, stating that Chimombe’s continued detention was justified given the gravity of his alleged offenses and the potential threats posed to the judicial process.
Meanwhile, Chimombe’s health appears to be deteriorating in custody. When he appeared for his fraud trial before High Court judge Pisirayi Kwenda on Monday, he struggled to speak, raising concerns over his well-being. The businessman has been languishing in remand prison for nearly nine months, and his legal team has repeatedly argued that his continued incarceration is unjustified.
Chimombe and his co-accused were arrested in 2024 on allegations of misusing public funds earmarked for the Presidential Goat-Pass-On Scheme. His legal team had argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred by relying on the magistrate’s initial decision instead of independently reviewing the matter. However, the Supreme Court maintained that the state had successfully established compelling reasons to keep him detained.
