CHEDA J: This
is an application for bail pending trial.
Applicant is a member of the
Zimbabwe National Army based in Plumtree.
The brief allegations against him are that he is facing two charges
firstly, that he wrote a threatening letter to a Magistrate who was presiding
over a case involving his colleagues who are facing charges of attempted murder
and discharging a fire arm in public.
The second charge is that he attempted to kidnap complainant's daughter
when she was at school.
Applicant now applies for bail on
the basis that he will not abscond and will not endanger the safety of the
public.
Respondent is opposing bail on three
grounds namely:-
1) abscondment
2) public safety, and
3) interference with State witnesses
These courts' stance towards the
granting of bail to suspects is that they should lean in favour of the liberty
of suspects unless they are convincing reasons which clearly indicate that the
granting of bail is not suitable in the circumstances.
It has been argued by respondent
that applicant is likely to abscond.
Even if this is a possibility, in some instances this can be effectively
taken care of by the imposition of strict bail conditions to prevent his
possible abscondment.
That leaves me with the task of exploring
the other two grounds for their opposition.
It is trite that where possible a suspect should not be deprived of his
liberty unless his release will and not “may” interfere with the due process of
law and crime control. In the present
case applicant has positively shown his desire to interfere with both due process
and crime control.
Applicant has threatened a
Magistrate with death and also attempted to kidnap his daughter. This, to me is
a serious threat to public safety. A
person who threatens another with death is a potential danger to society in
general and to the individual in particular.
Applicant's position is exarcebated by the fact that the threat was
directed at the officer who is charged with dispensing justice. This type of conduct runs contrary to the
independence of the judiciary, in that a judiciary officer's oath of office to
dispense justice without fear of favour is highly compromised. A judiciary officer's exercise of a judicial
function should never be interfered with, by anybody at all.
What applicant did is unlawful and
goes to demonstrate that he is a danger to the proper administration of
justice. In view of his determination to
frustrate the smooth running of the wheels of justice, he is not a person who
should be liberated pending trial.
Anyone, who has the nerve to take
such a bold step to interfere with the maintenance of law and order in the
manner described above should not be granted liberty as this will defeat the
course of justice.
Any person who unlawfully interferes
with the Police, prison officers, public prosecutors, judiciary officers or any
other officer charged with the proper administration of justice should be
deprived of his liberty pending trial.
In view of the above, I seriously
believe that there is reason to apprehend that if he is released the magistrate,
the child and all other officers whom he perceives as a stumbling block in the
release of his colleagues will be interfered with, see Exparte Nkete 1937 EDC
231.
In light of the above applicant is
denied bail.
Lazarus and Sarif, applicant's legal practitioners
Criminal Division.
Attorney General's Office, respondent's legal
practitioners.
