Prosecutors have declined to pursue charges against a medical doctor accused of obstructing the course of justice citing concerns over interference with an ongoing High Court case.
The decision relates to Dr Muchineripi Kondo who had been jointly charged alongside Kernisha Sheila Hunzwi under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
The matter was initially reported at Harare Central Police Station under reference CRB 2193/26.
The State opted not to proceed with prosecution arguing that doing so would interfere with a case currently before the High Court.
The case stems from an ongoing legal dispute between Ms Hunzwi and her former husband, Batsirai Matiza over custody of their 14-month-old child.
Matiza is the son of the late former minister Joel Biggie Matiza.
Court documents show that the couple’s divorce was finalised on 12 February 2026 through a consent order granting joint custody with the child alternating weekly between both parents.
However, Ms Hunzwi has since approached the High Court seeking an urgent suspension of the arrangement arguing that it was agreed to under duress and is not in the best interests of the child.
In her application, Ms Hunzwi said the child who is still breastfeeding is forced onto artificial feeding while in the father’s care something she claims could be harmful.
She also alleged that Matiza is frequently absent, leaving the infant in the care of a domestic worker.
Dr Kondo submitted a supporting letter raising further concerns including claims that Matiza had a history of alcohol abuse and had sought DNA testing for the child.
The doctor argued that the infant should remain primarily in the care of the mother to ensure “optimal health and emotional stability” proposing that the father be limited to supervised visits.
Matiza’s legal team has rejected the allegations arguing that Dr Kondo had never examined or treated either the father or the child.
They contend that the doctor’s involvement amounted to interference in the legal process leading to the initial charges of obstructing the course of justice.
While the criminal charges have been dropped, the underlying custody dispute remains before the High Court where judges are expected to determine what arrangement best serves the interests of the child.
