Police Investigation Comes Under Scrutiny in Dr Victoria Bobe Murder Trial

BLANTYRE– Dramatic scenes unfolded in the High Court today as defence lawyers tore into the principal investigating officer in the murder case of prominent medical doctor Victoria Bobe, exposing serious questions over police handling of evidence, video recordings, and the treatment of suspects.

High Court Judge Ruth Chinangwa presided over tense exchanges as Michael Goba Chipeta, lead defence counsel for the seven accused persons, subjected Assistant Superintendent Christopher Pangeti the state’s third witness to a rigorous cross-examination that lasted several hours and forced multiple court adjournments, including a private discussion in chambers.

The accused, who have pleaded not guilty to murder, burglary, and theft, include Charles Chikafa and Rafic Abdul Hassan. Dr Bobe, a medical practitioner at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, was shot dead at her home on the night of 17 November 2025 during what police described as a botched robbery involving demands for cash, including US dollars.

Video Evidence Under Fire

Much of the cross-examination centred on a police video tendered as evidence, showing the accused at the crime scene reconstructing events on 16 December 2025. Chipeta repeatedly pressed Pangeti on the integrity of the recording.

“Is the video before this Court the original digital file recorded by the police camera?” Chipeta asked.

“No. However, it reflects what is contained in the original recording,” Pangeti replied.

Chipeta continued: “Is this the original, unedited digital file?” Pangeti conceded it was not raw and unedited, admitting editing was possible though “there are explanations.” The defence highlighted that the video did not show the suspects being informed of their rights, voluntarily consenting to the reconstruction, or being warned that the session was being recorded.

Pangeti acknowledged the absence of these elements but maintained the accused participated freely and narrated events without coercion. He denied any rehearsals or special preparations, though he admitted officers gave directions during the process.

Media Leak and Public Exposure

The defence produced another video broadcast by Zodiak Online on 17 December 2025, showing a similar reconstruction with members of the public and media present – details absent from the police version. Pangeti conceded he wore different clothing in the two recordings, confirming they were from separate sessions, and that the public video had circulated widely before the trial.

Chipeta argued that public dissemination of the footage could prejudice the fairness of the trial. Pangeti said he was not personally aware of media presence at the time and did not authorise any release. The state objected to some lines of questioning, with prosecutor Abdul Limbe stressing that the Director of Public Prosecutions decides which evidence to tender.

Allegations of Torture and Missing Evidence

In one of the most charged moments, Chipeta directly put it to Pangeti that the accused had been assaulted, burned with a hot iron, and threatened with a gun to force their participation. Pangeti firmly denied this, insisting statements were given voluntarily, with some suspects even swearing on the name of Allah.

The defence presented photographs showing what appeared to be injuries on the suspects’ backs. Pangeti said he could not identify the individuals as the images did not clearly show their faces

Further weaknesses emerged regarding physical evidence. Pangeti admitted the murder weapon believed to be an assault rifle has not been recovered. He also conceded no forensic examination was conducted on a hole in the perimeter fence because the crime scene had already been contaminated by onlookers, leaving numerous unidentified fingerprints and footprints.

The investigator confirmed that some accused mentioned two other individuals not among the seven charged, along with a fake vehicle registration number, but police did not pursue them as the information “indicated they did not exist.” He also acknowledged that other items allegedly used in the crime, such as knives and iron bars, were not produced in court.

Court Tension and Judicial Intervention

The cross-examination grew so heated that Judge Chinangwa intervened, urging both sides to “lower our emotions.” At one point, she advised Pangeti to answer directly with “Yes, No, or I don’t know.” Some members of the Bobe family were seen in tears during the exchanges. The court adjourned for lunch and later to Monday.

Pangeti maintained that the reconstruction aimed to have the suspects demonstrate their alleged roles freely. He identified Rafic Hassan as the one believed to have fired the fatal shot.

Broader Implications

The defence portrayed the police investigation as flawed and potentially theatrical, arguing that the video their main linking evidence lacks reliability due to procedural lapses. The state maintains the evidence is sufficient and that the DPP selects relevant material for court.

The trial continues on Monday, with the defence expected to continue its cross-examination. The case has gripped the nation, given Dr Bobe’s standing in the medical community and the brutal nature of the killing.

Senior legal observers note that issues of evidence admissibility, chain of custody, and suspect rights will be critical as the matter progresses.