The
applicant is facing a charge of murder as defined in section 47 of the Criminal
Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. It is alleged that on an
unknown date between 27 July and 3rd August 2011, the applicant,
with seven (7) others, struck the now deceased with a sharp object on the head
and thereafter removed his tongue, brain, nose, lips and four fingers.
The
application is opposed on three grounds, namely;
(a)
Likelihood of abscondment;
(b)
Likelihood of interference with investigations; and
(c)
Likelihood of interference with State witnesses.
The
applicant was initially implicated by one Nkosilathi Khumalo. She was pointed
out as having masterminded the murder. The meeting at which the plan to murder
the now deceased person is alleged to have taken place at her place of abode.
She is the one who is alleged to have come up with the plan to hire persons to
carry out the physical aspects of the plan. She is alleged to have hired two of
her accomplices and one Nhlanhla Mhlanga and promised to pay them US$1,500=
after the mission is accomplished. She is alleged to have hired Zibusiso
Mkandla's vehicle to be used in the murder. She is said to have been the one
who spoke to Zibusiso Mkandla. She is the one who is said to have hired a
police detail to participate in the crime. The police detail she hired was to
put on a police uniform and go to the now deceased's place of residence and
pretend to place him under arrest. Although initially her role was not known to
the police, she became implicated and her prominence in the crime became
clearer when accomplices were arrested and other witnesses interviewed.
Key
factors in this application are the nature and gravity of the offence charged
and the strength of the prosecution case – S v Jongwe 2002 (2) ZLR 209 (S); S v
Nichos & Anor 1997 (1) SA 263, and S v Moyo HB23-05.
In
the applicant's favour is that she was not immediately arrested after the
police initially interviewed her. However, as alluded to above, her alleged
prominent involvement had not yet been detected at that stage. The situation
has dramatically changed since then. She has now been confronted with evidence
of witnesses who evince her involvement in the crime. The inducement to abscond
is now present. She now knows what the others have told the police about her
involvement in the crime. She now knows that it has been evinced that she is
the alleged brain behind the murder. Her situation is different from her
co-accused, Luvimbi, who was granted bail. The latter was only implicated by a
co-accused. In the applicant's case, there are other factors such as hosting
the planning meeting and hiring a vehicle from Zibusiso Mkandla. The evidence
against her seems to be far more stronger than the evidence against Luvimbi.
She is closely related to key witnesses like Cecilia Khumalo. There is
likelihood that she will interfere with witnesses and investigations. Taking
into account all the factors, cumulatively, I hold the view that she is not a
suitable candidate for bail.
Accordingly,
the application is dismissed and the accused is refused bail.
