By Courts Reporter – A dramatic twist has emerged in the rape case involving popular social media personality Mai Jeremaya, as the two accused men now claim the encounter was a paid arrangement that went sour over a fee dispute.
Thabo Blessing Dube (27) and Martin Charlie (25), arrested over the weekend, appeared in court on Monday facing rape charges. The complainant, known widely as Mai Jeremaya, waived her right to anonymity by posting a video detailing the alleged assault. Her account sparked widespread outrage and support from other women, including social media figures such as Mai TT.
However, in court documents submitted by the State yesterday, the accused men presented a radically different version of events.
They allege that Dube facilitated a meeting between Charlie and Mai Jeremaya at Joina City in central Harare, where she allegedly agreed to engage in sex with Charlie for a US$20 fee. They claim the three proceeded to a lodge in Eastlea, where Mai Jeremaya willingly undressed, kissed Charlie, and had consensual sex with him, fully aware of the nature of their encounter.
Dube, on the other hand, denies any sexual contact with her, contrary to her allegations.
According to their defence, trouble began after the act, when Mai Jeremaya allegedly demanded US$500 instead of the agreed US$20. They claim she still accepted the US$20, took a shower, and was escorted to a taxi by the duo.
Two days later, the men allege, she sent a private investigator—Tafadzwa “Detective Kedha” Chidawa—to locate them as part of an extortion attempt. When they refused to pay more, they say, the rape allegation was made.
The State had initially consented to bail, but Magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa challenged this decision, questioning why the accused were not also facing aggravated indecent assault charges, as they allegedly forced the complainant to perform oral sex.
In its revised submission, the State acknowledged this concern but argued that both the rape and the alleged forced oral sex formed part of the same transaction. Prosecutors said charging both offences would amount to splitting of charges, as the same evidence applies to both.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the State said it had no compelling reasons to deny bail.
“There are no well-founded fears that the accused will abscond,” the submission read. “They have fixed addresses, no previous convictions or pending cases, and did not show any conduct suggesting flight risk.”