Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB111-09 - LUKA MISHECK KHUPE and TSHINDU NCUBE and SIPUDAWU NDEBELE and KHANGEZA MOYO and NKOSILATHI NLEYA vs THE STATE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Bail-viz bail pending trial.

Bail-viz bail hearing re allegations iro burden of proof.
Bail-viz bail pending trial re murder.
Bail-viz murder.
Bail-viz fear of accused absconding.
Bail-viz travel documents re passports iro possibility of abscondment.
Bail-viz risk of interference with witnesses re evidence of identification.
Bail-viz disturbance of public order.
Bail-viz principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Bail-viz personal circumstances of the suspect.
Bail-viz circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.
Bail-viz uncontroverted evidence.
Bail-viz direct evidence re evidence linking the accused to the commission of the offence.
Bail-viz possibility of interference with State witnesses re disclosure by the State of its witness list.
Bail-viz safety of the accused re evidence of the community being up in arms against the perpetrator.
Bail-viz murder re instant justice.
Bail-viz murder re mob justice.
Bail-viz safety of the accused re fear of reprisals.
Bail-viz section 117(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07].
Bail-viz perceived witnesses.
Bail-viz interference with State witnesses re failure by the State to disclose witnesses iro perceived witnesses.

Bail re: Bail Pending Trial iro Approach, Constitutional Right to Bail & Denial of Bail in the Interests of Justice

This is an application for bail pending trial, which application is opposed by the respondent.

The genesis and historical background of the case is as stated below.

The applicants, whose ages range between thirty-five to seventy-eight, are being charged with murder. They all reside at Makhulela Village in the remote area of Plumtree District. It is alleged that on the 5th day of September 2009 at Balisi Sibanda's Homestead, Makhulela, they unlawfully, and wrongfully, assaulted Jele Moyo and Ngwenya Dube, who died two days later.

This is what the respondent stated in its submissions, and is disputed by the applicants.

These, of course, are still allegations which will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court.

The question then, is, should the applicants be admitted to bail or not?

The respondent vigorously opposed this application on the basis that -

(1) They are likely to abscond, even if they have no passports.

(2) They are likely to interfere with witnesses in the village as all of them are villagers; and

(3) Their release will disturb public order, or undermine public peace or security.

The objections raised by the respondent are generally valid, and the provisions of section 117(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] are clear. These, however, are guidelines, and not an end to themselves.

In my considered view, the granting of bail should be arrived at after careful consideration of the real possibility of abscondment and interference with State witnesses. Such considerations must take into account a suspect's personal circumstances, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.

The submission by the applicants that the deceased died as a result of ingestion of poison, which was forced on them by a mob, stands uncontroverted. If this turns out to be the correct position at the trial, it will, no doubt, have been prejudicial to the applicants who enjoy the operation of the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The question of abscondment has been raised as one of the reasons for the opposition of the granting of bail

It is common knowledge that, in the present day Zimbabwe, people have a tendency to travel in and out of the country without valid travel documents, or no documents at all. While this is a reality, in my view, it is not proper to deny a suspect bail on that basis alone. Each case must be determined on its own merits. If all cases are treated the same, on that basis, it will result in serious prejudice to those who reside near our borders.

The applicants, and other villagers, live on the Botswana border. It is well-known that these villagers are tribally linked to Botswana. They, therefore, travel in and out of Zimbabwe at will, and at times without travel documents. To deprive them of their liberty on that basis alone is, in my view, improper.

They should not be shut out of the benefit of the presumption of innocence because of their accidental geographical location.

In addition thereto, the commission of this offence is hazily linked to them as it appears that either the assault, or the force to take poison, was as a result of over two hundred villagers who were present at Basili Sibanda's funeral. This is confirmed by the investigating officer's statement that more “witnesses” are yet to be arrested.

It is also the respondent's view that they are likely to interfere with State witnesses.

It is trite that in order for this reason to stand, the State should state which witnesses these are. The fact that the applicants live in the same village with some perceived witnesses is not enough for the purposes of this bail application.

It is, further, their argument that their safety in the community is not guaranteed.

This, indeed, may be so where there is evidence that the community is up in arms against the perpetrators.

In casu, that facts point to a scenario where the two deceased died as a result of what over two hundred villagers perceived as a need to administer instant justice. Therefore, the applicants' actions, if at all, are not viewed as wrong, wrongly though of course. It is for this reason that they are likely to receive sympathy, and, as such, fears of reprisals held by the respondent are not justified in the circumstances.

This is a case where the liberty of the applicants cries out loudly for justice, and, accordingly, the following order is made -

Order:

The applicants be and are hereby admitted to bail pending trial on the following conditions -

(1) That the applicants deposit each a sum of US$50= with the Assistant Registrar of the High Court, Bulawayo.

(2) That the applicants must not interfere with any State witnesses, as may be indicated by the State, or the police.

(3) That the applicants report to Khame Police Post, Plumtree, once a week on Wednesdays between 8am and 5pm until finalization of their case.

Bail re: Murder

The applicants, through their legal practitioner, stated that the correct position is that one Balisi Sibanda died at his own village, and the community held the view that Jele Moyo and Ngwenya Dube had laced his beer with poison. At the funeral of Balisi Sibanda, villagers confronted the two, who admitted having administered the poison.

There were more than two hundred villagers at this gathering.

The now two deceased, who are the subject of these proceedings, were forced to produce the poison in the form of herbs. They were forced to prepare the concoction and drank it. The concoction proved to be an effective poison as they also died after drinking it.

It is their contention that the two died as a result of partaking this poison, and not assault.

Bail re: Approach iro Approach to Bail Hearings and Rules of Evidence in Bail Proceedings

The cardinal principle in our legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

This presumption operates throughout until the suspect is convicted by a competent court upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. While guarding against the danger of releasing a suspect from custody may result in defeating the proper administration of justice, courts should always bear in mind that there is always a heavy weight on the other side of the see-saw, so to speak, being the presumption of innocence. It, therefore, stands to reason that the courts should not lightly deny a suspect his/her liberty.

The liberty of an individual is sacrosanct. It should therefore not be taken away from him/her with ease.

As stated above, the courts should be more inclined to the liberty of a suspect than deprivation thereof, where necessary.

The English proverb that: “An ox, when he is loose, licks himself at pleasure”, is instructive.

Bail Pending Trial

 

            CHEDA J:     This is an application for bail pending trial which application is opposed by the respondent.

            The genesis and historical background of the case is as stated below:

            Applicants whose ages range between 35 – 78 are being charged with murder.  They all reside at Makhulela village in the remote area of Plumtree District.  It is alleged that on the 5th day of September 2009 at Balisi Sibanda's Homestead, Makhulela, they unlawfully and wrongful assaulted Jele Moyo and Ngwenya Dube who died two days later.  This is what respondent stated in its submissions and is disputed by respondent.  Applicants through their legal practitioner stated that the correct position is that one Balisi Sibanda died at his own village and the community held the view that Jele Moyo and Ngwenya Dube had laced his beer with poison.  At the funeral of Balisi Sibanda, villagers confronted the two who admitted having administered the poison.  There were more than 200 villagers at this gathering.  The now two deceased, who are the subject of these proceedings were forced to produce the poison in the form of herbs.  They were forced to prepare the concotion and drank it.  This concotion proved to be an effective poison as they also died after drinking it.  It is their contention that the two died as a result of partaking this poison and not assault.  These, of course are still allegations which will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in court.

              The question then is, should the applicants be admitted to bail or not?  Respondent has vigorously opposed this application on the basis that:

(1)        they are likely to abscond, even if they have no passports,

(2)        they are likely to interfere with witnesses in the village as all of them are

            villagers, and

(3)        their release will disturb public order or undermine public peace or security.

            The cardinal principle in our legal system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.   This presumption operates throughout until a suspect is convicted by a competent court upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.  While guarding against the danger of releasing a suspect from custody may result in defeating the proper administration of justice, courts should always bear in mind that there is always a heavy weight on the other side of the see-saw, so to speak, being this presumption of innocence.  It, therefore, stands to reason that the courts should not lightly deny a suspect his/her liberty.  The liberty of an individual is sacrosanct, it should therefore not be taken away from him/her with easy. 

            The objections raised by the respondent are generally valid and the provisions of section 117 (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] are clear.  These however, are guidelines and not an end to themselves.

            In my considered view, the granting of bail should be arrived at after careful consideration of the real possibility of abscondment and interference with state witnesses.  Such considerations must take into account a suspect's personal circumstances and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.  The submissions by applicant that the deceased died as a result of ingestion of poison which was forced on them by a mob stand uncotroverted.  If this turns out to be the correct position at the trial, it will no doubt have been prejudicial to the applicants, who enjoy the operation of the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

            The question of abscondment has been raised as one of the reasons for the opposition of the granting of bail.  It is common knowledge that in the present day Zimbabwean people have a tendency to travel in and out of the country without valid travel documents or no documents at all.  While this is a reality, in my view, it is not proper to deny a suspect bail on that basis alone.  Each case must be determined on its own merits.  If all cases are treated the same on that basis, it will result in serious prejudice to those who reside near our borders.  Applicants and other villagers live on the Botswana border.  It is well known that these villagers are tribally linked to Botswana.  They, therefore, travel in and out of Zimbabwe at will and at times without travel documents.  To deprive them of their liberty on that basis alone is, in my view, improper.  They should not be shut out of the benefit of the presumption of innocence because of their accidental geographical location.

            In addition thereto, the commission of this offence is hazily linked to them as it appears that either the assault or the force to take poison was as a result of over 200 villagers who were present at Balisi's funeral.  This is confirmed by the investigating officers, statement that more “witnesses” are yet to be arrested.

            It is also the respondent's view that they are likely to interfere with state witnesses.  It is trite that in order for this reason to stand, the state should state which witnesses these are.  The fact that applicants live in the same village with some perceived witnesses is not enough for the purposes of this bail application.

            It is, further, their argument that their safety in the community is not guaranteed.  This, indeed, may be so where there is evidence that the community is up in arms against the perpetrators.  In casu the facts point to a scenario where the two deceased died as a result of what over 200 villagers perceived as a need to administer instant justice.  Therefore, applicants' actions, if at all, are not viewed as wrong, wrongly though of course.  It is for that reason that they are likely to receive sympathy and as such fears of reprisals held by respondent are not justified in the circumstances.  As stated above the courts should be more inclined to the liberty of a suspect than deprivation thereof, where necessary.  The English proverb that, “An ox, when he is loose, licks himself at pleasure”, is instructive.

            This is a case where the liberty of applicants cries out loudly for justice, and accordingly the following order is made:-

Order

Applicants be and are hereby admitted to bail pending trial on the following conditions:-

(1)        That the Applicants deposit each a sum of US$50 with the Assistant Registrar of the High Court, Bulawayo.

(2)        That the Applicants must not interfere with any state witnesses, as may be indicated by the state or the police.

(3)        That the Applicants report to Khame Police Post, Plumtree once a week on Wednesdays between 8am and 5pm until the finalization of their case.

 

 

           

Cheda and Partners, applicants' legal practitioners

Criminal Division, Attorney General's Office, respondent's legal practitioners
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top