Alfred Zvapera and Faith Ngwenyenyi v The State

On 21 February 2017, two applicants together with three other unknown persons allegedly connived to rob West Garage in Lupane. They armed themselves with two pistols and used the first applicant's motor vehicle, a Toyota Noah registration number AED 5411. At the garage, they ordered 40 litres of fuel valued at $54. When the fuel attendant asked for payment, they produced pistols and fired two shots ordering everyone to lie down. They fired two more shots at a Honda Fit motor vehicle, with one bullet missing the occupant and hitting the bonnet. They searched the fuel attendant and took $107 in cash. The applicants were charged with robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] and attempted murder as defined in section 47 as read with section 189 of the Code. The first applicant claimed he had been kidnapped by unknown assailants prior to the commission of the offences. The state did not oppose bail for the second applicant, who was granted bail by consent.

• Whether the first applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether the first applicant posed a flight risk given the seriousness of the charges
• Whether the strength of the state's prima facie case against the first applicant justified refusing bail
• Whether co-accused persons can be treated differently in bail matters

First applicant's application for bail pending trial was dismissed. Second applicant was granted bail by consent.

In bail applications, the court must assess whether there are compelling reasons to detain the applicant pending trial by considering: (1) the seriousness of the charges and likely penalties if convicted; (2) the strength of the state's prima facie case; (3) the risk of absconding; and (4) whether the applicant has discharged the onus of showing they will stand trial. Where an applicant faces serious charges such as armed robbery and attempted murder that attract lengthy imprisonment, and the state has a strong prima facie case, the inducement to abscond is significant and the applicant must demonstrate that the risk of absconding is non-existent. A defence that raises questions without meaningfully weakening the state's case does not reduce the flight risk. Co-accused persons facing the same charges may be treated differently in bail matters where such differentiation is justified by the individual circumstances of each accused.

The court observed that in cases where an accused person seeks bail, it may be desirable for the accused to disclose their defence and not merely make bold assertions of innocence. The court also noted that while jointly charged accused persons should normally be treated in the same manner with regard to bail matters, differentiation can be justified in certain aspects in the administration of justice.

This case demonstrates the application of established Zimbabwean principles for assessing bail applications in serious criminal matters, particularly regarding flight risk assessment. It confirms that co-accused persons may be treated differently in bail matters where justified by the circumstances, even though they face the same charges. The case illustrates how courts balance the accused's liberty interests against the administration of justice, and emphasizes that a weak or questionable defence does not undermine a strong prima facie state case in bail determinations.