On
the 20th May 2014, the complainant in this matter, Zvaitwa Mukukutu,
arrived at Beitbridge town enroute to South Africa where he intended to
purchase a motor vehicle. He engaged one Samuel Mukonoweshuro (the applicant's
co-accused) to help him clear the motor vehicle to be purchased as his
agent. Samuel Mukonoweshuro then accompanied the complainant around
Beitbridge town looking for accommodation for the night. It is the State
case that Samuel Mukonoweshuro allegedly conspired with the applicant and one
Jonathan Mutungamiri to rob the complainant. It is further alleged that
Samuel Mukonoweshuro then hired, or made arrangements with, the applicant to
lie in wait at another lodge. As they proceeded to the lodge, the applicant
and Jonathan Mutungamiri then confronted them, produced a firearm and ordered
them to lie down. The applicant and his co-accused then searched the
complainant and robbed him of US$1,013=, R80=, a Nokia x 2 cellphone, a
passport and other documents. The commotion drew the attention of a
security guard who was at the lodge who threw a stone in the direction of the
complainant and the robbers. The applicant is alleged to have fired a shot
into the air, forcing the security guard to retreat into the safety of the
premises he was guarding. The applicant and his co-accused fled into the
bush and Samuel Mukonoweshuro accompanied the complainant to the police station
where a report was made.
Investigations
led to the arrest of the applicant and a search conducted at his house resulted
in the recovery of a CZ pistol with a Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) serial
number BSAP 344 with a magazine loaded with 15 rounds of ammunition. The
Zimbabwe Republic Police CZ service pistol had been stolen at Zimbabwe Republic
Police, Drill Hall on the 10th October 2006.
It
should be noted that the pistol was recovered under the driver's seat of the applicant's
Nissan Pulsar, registration number ACA 9694.
The
applicant flatly denies the allegations and says that he was falsely implicated
by his co-accused. He further denies that he was involved in any
robbery. He explained that he was surprised by the recovery of the CZ
pistol from underneath his driver's seat. In other words, the applicant
implies that the pistol must have been planted by the police. The applicant
did not venture to give an explanation regarding the blue woollen mask also
recovered from his house.
The
applicant contends that he is a suitable candidate for bail because he is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. He contended that there is no risk
of abscondment because no evidence has been placed before the court to indicate
that he has attempted to flee the jurisdiction of the court.
The
State has opposed the granting of bail largely relying on the fact that there
is a real risk and likelihood that the applicant will abscond in view of the
offence charged and the likely penalty upon conviction. The State contends
that the evidence against the applicant is overwhelming, more particularly
given the fact that the ballistics report confirms that the spent cartridge
recovered from the scene of the robbery matched the firearm fired at the scene
of the crime.
It
is my view that given the nature of the offence, and the likely penalty to be
imposed should the applicant be convicted, there is a real possibility that if
granted bail pending trial the applicant may abscond.
In
the matter of S v Moyo HB23-05, the court observed
and pointed out that where the State case is prima facie strong a
conviction is almost guaranteed. With this knowledge, and in the light of
the fact that the applicant is an ex-police officer, he is most unlikely to
wait for a trial where conclusion will be against him. I am in agreement
with counsel for the State that the due administration of justice is likely to
be compromised if the applicant were to be granted bail pending trial.
The
applicant is not a suitable candidate for bail.
I
must remark that, in general, these courts are slow to grant bail in cases of
robbery, more particularly where firearms are used by the suspects in the
commission of the offences. The courts generally impose heavy custodial
sentences where convictions are secured and therefore there is a huge
temptation for persons facing such charges to abscond and avoid trial.
In
the result, the application for bail is hereby dismissed.
