The appellant's first ground of
appeal is premised on the argument that he was not lawfully entitled to arrest
Khulekani Ncube and for that reason he did not act unlawfully when he released
that person.
The fallacy of that argument is self-evident.
Khulekani Ncube was suspected of
having committed a robbery in South Africa and repatriating ...
The appellant's first ground of
appeal is premised on the argument that he was not lawfully entitled to arrest
Khulekani Ncube and for that reason he did not act unlawfully when he released
that person.
The fallacy of that argument is self-evident.
Khulekani Ncube was suspected of
having committed a robbery in South Africa and repatriating the proceeds to
Zimbabwe where he was suspected of prodigally frittering those proceeds away
purchasing expensive motor vehicles for cash. Faced with that situation, the
learned trial magistrate concluded that he was covered by the provisions of
section 25(2)(e) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]
which provides:
“Any peace officer may, without any
order or warrant, arrest any person who has been concerned in, or against whom
a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received
or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in any act
committed at any place outside Zimbabwe which, if committed in Zimbabwe would
have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, in terms of any
enactment relating to extradition of fugitive offenders or otherwise, liable to
be arrested or detained in Zimbabwe.”
The conclusion of the trial court in this regard
cannot be faulted.
The attempt by the appellant to
rely on the judgment of CHEDA J in Khulekani Ncube and Another v Minister of
Home Affairs and Another HB50-03 (not reported) is not sustainable at all.
In that case, the court ordered the
release of Khulekani Ncube and his co-accused because the extradition of the
accused persons had taken longer than the two (2) months period allowed by
section 33 of the Extradition Act [Chapter 9:08] for the holding of a suspect
in custody.
By
any stretch of the imagination, that judgment cannot be interpreted as meaning
that the arrest of Khulekani Ncube was unlawful. In my view, the appellant had
a duty to apprehend the suspect if he was aware that he was wanted in
connection with the armed robbery which occurred at Johannesburg International
Airport.
