In a case in which a female Zimbabwean national was allegedly raped by his employer, the accused man, Patson Amos, on Friday pleaded not guilty before Francistown Principal Magistrate, Peggy Mandume, citing the court as unfair and irregular in its proceedings. 
Amos demanded the court to use the medical report as evidence in his case because he believed it would prove he was innocent and it was of great value to the case.
The magistrate informed Amos that, despite the fact that medical report examination would be of value to the evidence, the court and the prosecution had also not received the medical reports. The magistrate further told the accused that the court would also not rely on the evidence in the medical report as it was not in their possession.
 
Amos projected before court that the medical report was of greater value to prove his innocence because, during the medical examination, he was told that the results would prove he had sexual contact if it happened three or two days before, which he said he never did.
Amos further blamed the complainant for giving contradicting stories to the police and the evidence she led in court. He asserted that the complainant had informed the police in her statement that the man had sex with her three times during the same day, but she told the court a different story, that he raped her four times.
 
According to the submission from the prosecution, the incident happened on the 4th January 2008 in Selepa location in Francistown, where Amos is alleged to have raped the woman he had hired as his babysitter.
Amos is alleged to have threatened the complainant with sticks and drove her to his bedroom where he raped her.
Giving evidence in court, Amos pointed out that he never raped the complainant, but had simply hired the woman who later could not perform her duties as they had initially agreed. He pointed out that the feud started after realizing that his children were being neglected and had questioned the complainant who later formed a story against him and reported to the police.
 
The state brought before court that it found no reason for the complainant to make up a story against the accused over a conflict of not taking care of the children.
It also brought to the court’s attention that the accused’s story was nothing but an afterthought.
 
The case continues…
