Harare, Zimbabwe – The rape trial involving socialite Ashley “Mai Jeremaya” Masendeke took a dramatic turn recently when the final prosecution witness, a close friend of the alleged victim, offered testimony that appeared to contradict Mai Jeremaya's account of the alleged assault.
The friend claimed Mai Jeremaya confessed to willingly engaging in sexual activity with one of the accused men, stating he was "talking to her nicely."
Ashley Masendeke accuses Thabo Blessing Dube and Martin Charlie of rape at a lodge in Harare, an incident she alleges occurred on April 30, 2025.
Ashley Masendeke accuses Thabo Blessing Dube and Martin Charlie of rape at a lodge in Harare, an incident she alleges occurred on April 30, 2025.
The accused men have pleaded not guilty, maintaining that the sexual encounter was consensual.
Testifying before the Harare Magistrates Court, Cythina Duringo, a friend of Mai Jeremaya and the State's key witness, shared her recollections of what Mai Jeremaya told her shortly after the alleged incident.
Friend's Account Differs from Alleged Victim's Testimony
Testifying before the Harare Magistrates Court, Cythina Duringo, a friend of Mai Jeremaya and the State's key witness, shared her recollections of what Mai Jeremaya told her shortly after the alleged incident.
![]() |
Friend’s Testimony Shakes Up Mai Jeremaya Rape Trial, Sparking a New Turn in the Case |
According to Ms. Duringo, Mai Jeremaya said she was taken to a lodge by the two men who had claimed they were arranging a meeting with their boss. Upon arrival, after spending time chatting and watching her skits at the reception, she was directed to a room.
Ms. Duringo testified that Mai Jeremaya realised at that point "it wasn't an ordinary meeting" but felt she had to "play along so that they wouldn't hurt her," having reportedly seen a gun.
However, Ms. Duringo delivered a potentially significant blow to the prosecution's case by claiming Mai Jeremaya told her she felt comfortable with one of the men, described as light-skinned, because he spoke kindly to her. According to Duringo's testimony as reported by various outlets, Mai Jeremaya allegedly confessed that she "agreed to stay with him in the room and consented to have sexual intercourse with him."
This specific claim of consent to one individual appears to conflict with Mai Jeremaya's formal accusation of being raped by both men.
Ms. Duringo also recounted Mai Jeremaya describing the encounter as feeling "very long because she didn't like it" and uncomfortable due to someone repeatedly entering and leaving the room. Afterward, Mai Jeremaya was reportedly given US$10, which she used to travel home.
Defence Highlights Inconsistencies Under Cross-Examination
Defence lawyers Shepherd Makonde and George Manokore subjected Ms. Duringo to rigorous cross-examination, pointing out apparent inconsistencies between her testimony and Mai Jeremaya's previous statements in court.
Ms. Duringo was questioned about why Mai Jeremaya left her home after the alleged incident, to which she responded that Mai Jeremaya had simply come over for a sleepover.
The defence also raised a peculiar claim previously mentioned in court proceedings: that Ms. Duringo had attempted to "exorcise" Mai Jeremaya using snuff. Ms. Duringo firmly denied this, stating that Mai Jeremaya had lied about that specific detail.
Furthermore, Ms. Duringo confirmed under questioning that she was the one who informed Mai Jeremaya's husband about the alleged rape, despite being asked by Mai Jeremaya to keep it a secret between them. She conceded to the defence that the husband would not have known if she had not disclosed the information.
Defence lawyers have consistently argued that the prosecution's case is undermined by inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, including variations across multiple police statements she recorded.
State Closes Case, Defence Seeks Discharge
Following Ms. Duringo's testimony, Prosecutor Cecilia Mashingaidze formally closed the State's case. The defence team subsequently submitted an application for the accused to be discharged at this stage of the trial, arguing that the prosecution had failed to present a credible and consistent case.The magistrate has reserved judgment on this application.