The applicant is the fifth accused, jointly charged with four accomplices.
It
is alleged by the State that the applicant, who was a security guard at Stanbic Bank, Chegutu for the past four
years, participated in the planning of the robbery by providing logistical
information to her co-accused. The State contends that while her involvement
may appear to be minimal she is equally liable for the consequences of the
actions of her colleagues, notwithstanding that she did not actively
participate in the robbery physically. It is also alleged that the applicant
facilitated a reconnaissance mission on 28 December 2009 in which her
co-accused, Jotamu Gonese and Akim Matare, visited the bank a day before the
offence was committed. During the course of the robbery, the Assistant Bank
Manager was shot. The applicant was allegedly implicated by the second accused
who is her nephew; that is Akim Matare.
The
State fears that if released on bail the applicant is likely to abscond to
South Africa where some of her co-accused' are hiding.
The
applicant denies furnishing any information to Akim Matare or any of her
co-accused. She contends that the State case against her is weak as there is no
evidence linking her to the offence. She claims she has no international
connections, and has no means to abscond, and, in any event, investigations
have been completed. The balance should, therefore, tilt in her favour and she
should be granted her liberty pending trial.
Armed
robbery is a serious offence which attracts lengthy custodial terms of
imprisonment. It is, however, trite that the seriousness of an offence, on its
own, is not reason to deny an applicant bail.
In
casu, the State relies not only on the implication of the applicant by her
co-accused but also to circumstantial evidence that points to her involvement
in the planning of the commission of the offence in which she provided
logistical information that led to the “successful” heist. The applicant's
alleged complicity and participation in the reconnaissance mission of 28
December 2009 is also based on circumstantial evidence arising from activities
that were observed by a number of State witnesses on the day in question. It is
also the State's allegation that she is known to all the State witnesses, and
her release on bail will inspire fear in them.
The
reliance by the State on circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence
does not, in my view, invalidate the State's fear that she may not stand trial
as her alleged participation in the commission of the offence, though not
direct, is of critical relevance to the accomplishment of the robbers' mission,
and her fate is likely to be thus the same, or nearly so, of that of the actual
perpetrators. The State alleges that when her co-accuseds approached the bank
on the date of the commission of the offence they pretended to force-march her
into the bank. A couple of witnesses' statements, which form file B282/10, the
bail application by Jotamu Gonese, state that the applicant was force-marched
into the bank. The dispute between the State and the applicant is whether or
not the “force-march” was for real or it was staged – a pretence. The balance,
on the issue is, in my view, tilted in the State's favour when consideration is
given to the further factor highlighted by the State that she was the only
victim at the bank from whom nothing was stolen. This ought to be viewed
against the fact that Akim Matare, the second accused, is her nephew.
It is for these reasons that I am of the view
that the balance in this matter is tilted in favour of the administration of
justice and the denial of bail to the applicant. These are the reasons for my
dismissal of the applicant's application for bail on 7 May 2010.
