Gift Amuli arrested for calling First Farai a thief
Sungura musician Gift “Case” Amuli has been arrested for calling fellow musician First Farai a THIEF on various social media sites
Amuli used social media to attack First Farai, the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association vice-chairperson, and this has now landed him in trouble.
He is being accused of cyberbullying.
Amuli, who dubbed First Farai a thief on various occasions on social media platforms, was arrested yesterday during a ZIMURA workshop in Harare.
On several occasions, Amuli questioned Farai Farai’s integrity, and accused him of allegedly stealing condolence money intended for the late Cephas “Motomuzhinji” Mashakada in 2011.
The allegations were first raised by Hosiah Chipanga.
First Farai has repeatedly refuted these claims.
After weeks of being publicly ridiculed by Amuli, First Farai filed a complaint with the police.
It led to the arrest of Amuli.
Ironically, one of Amuli’s hit songs is called “Wamatuka.”
National police spokesperson, Commissioner Paul Nyathi, confirmed yesterday that Amuli was arrested and was being interviewed over allegations of cyberbullying.
“I can confirm the arrest of Gift Amuli over cyberbullying, specifically regarding Farai Batani.
“He is assisting the police with investigations and we will keep you posted on the developments,” he said.
Comm Nyathi urged people to find better ways of resolving their differences without bullying each other.
“We urge people to find amicable solutions to their disagreements without resorting to social media.
“People should not engage in cyberbullying when they have disagreements.”
First Farai, who has been on the receiving end of a flurry of accusations in the past few months, confirmed that he reported the case in his personal capacity after Amuli dragged his name into the controversy.
“I reached a point where I realised that the attacks were too much and there was a need to address this by reporting him for cyberbullying,” he said.
“This was not a ZIMURA board case but I reported it in my own personal capacity.
“The police had been looking for him, but he was playing cat-and-mouse.
“It was only on Wednesday (yesterday) that he was arrested at the Zimbabwe College of Music while we were holding our workshop with our members.”
First Farai, who is also a sungura musician with over 20 years in the industry, added:
“To be honest, I don’t have bad blood against Amuli, and I consider him a brother.
“I have been patient over the past months while he was calling me a thief on social media.
“My family was also worried and I realised that the best way to handle the issue was by taking this legal route in my own personal capacity,” he added.
The internal conflicts within ZIMURA have been going on for some time and escalated following the sale of two of the association’s flats in Harare.
This led to animosity within the association, resulting in three board members – Joseph Gararakara, Amuli and Derreck Mpofu – being fired.
It took the intervention of the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to help resolve the matter.
The warring parties were advised to iron out their differences amicably for the benefit of the music industry. *_-H-Metro_*
11. *High Court orders Defence Ministry to pay US$116,000 over fatal military vehicle crash*
The High Court of Zimbabwe has ordered the Minister of Defence and War Veterans Affairs and the Air Force of Zimbabwe to pay US$116,772.48 in damages to a widow following a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a military vehicle.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Never Katiyo last week, concluded a civil trial arising from the death of Mudavanhu Manjengwa, who died from injuries sustained in an accident on December 21, 2019.
The lawsuit was initiated by the deceased’s widow, Lucia Manjengwa, who sought damages for loss of support. The accident was caused by the negligent driving of Matthew Mushinga, an employee of the Air Force who was operating a service vehicle at the time.
The central legal debate focused on whether the government was liable for Mushinga’s actions. The defendants argued that Mushinga was on a “frolic of his own,” acting without authority, outside working hours, and without a valid military driver’s license.
But Justice Katiyo rejected the defense’s attempt to distance the state from the accident.
The court found that the Ministry had created a foreseeable risk by entrusting a fleet of vehicles to an unlicensed officer, failing to implement effective control mechanisms, such as logbooks or authorization forms and failing to supervise or prevent the unauthorized use of the vehicle.
The court applied the “creation of risk” doctrine, ruling that there was a sufficiently close link between the employment and the wrongful conduct. Consequently, the Minister and the Air Force were found 95% liable for the damages, while Mushinga was held 5% liable.
“This court aligns itself with the reasoning in Minister of Police v Rabie 1986 (1) SA 117 (A), which established that even where an employee acts partly for personal purposes, the employer may still be liable if there is a sufficiently close link between the wrongful conduct and the risk created by the employment.
“The 1st and 2nd defendants, Minister of Defence and Air Marshall Air Force of Zimbabwe respectively, by issuing a service vehicle and placing it under the control of an unlicensed officer, created a foreseeable risk to the public.
“The accident that occurred was not too remote from that risk. Their omission to supervise, restrict or prevent the 3rd defendant from driving constitutes negligence independent of vicarious liability,” the judge ruled.
In determining the award, the court noted that the deceased was 44 years old at the time of his death and earned a monthly salary equivalent to USD 931.20. Based on a remaining earning capacity of 11 years and established legal precedents, the court calculated the final award.
Justice Katiyo ordered payment of US$116,772.48 (or the Zimbabwean dollar equivalent at the prevailing interbank rate) together with interest at the prescribed rate from the date the summons was issued.
The defendants are required to cover the plaintiff’s legal costs.
The plaintiff was represented by the Legal Resources Foundation, while the Civil Division of the Attorney General appeared for the first and second defendants. *_-Nehanda Radio_*

