Blessmore Shatei v The State

The applicant, an employee of the Airforce of Zimbabwe, was charged with murder as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act. On 26 April 2015 at around 1820 hours at Manyame Airbase Bomb Dump Area, he allegedly approached the deceased, a fellow employee, and attempted to rape her. During the process, he shot the deceased once on the left side of the face with an AK47 rifle. He then allegedly dragged the deceased's body to a secluded area and covered it with dried gumtree shrubs, and stole her black Huawei cellular phone with a Net-One line. The applicant was arrested on 27 April 2015. A witness at the Technical Area gate saw the applicant heading towards the Bomb Dump area, heard a gunshot shortly after, and then saw him coming from that direction. The applicant's blood-stained army combat jacket and a torn green army jersey (which his roommate Tawanda Makokova saw him wearing when he left for duty) were recovered from his room. The applicant applied for bail under s 117A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether there was a likelihood that the applicant would abscond if released on bail
• Whether the applicant would attempt to interfere with witnesses or conceal evidence
• Whether releasing the applicant would jeopardize the proper functioning of the criminal justice system
• The application of the constitutional right to bail under s 50(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe balanced against the interests of justice

The application for bail was dismissed.

In bail applications for serious offenses such as murder, the constitutional rights to bail (s 50(1)(d)) and presumption of innocence (s 70(1)(a)) must be balanced against the interests of justice and proper administration of the criminal justice system. Bail will be refused under s 117(2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act where: (1) the charge is serious and likely to attract severe punishment, creating a real risk of absconding; (2) the State's case is strong and the accused has failed to rebut the allegations; (3) the accused's conduct demonstrates an attempt to conceal evidence or interfere with witnesses; and (4) granting bail would jeopardize the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. The court must assess the risk of absconding by considering: the nature and severity of the charge, the strength of the State's case, the accused's ability to flee, previous behaviour, and the credibility of assurances to stand trial (per S v Jongwe).

The court noted that the attitude of the police to a bail application, though not necessarily decisive, is a relevant factor to be considered together with other relevant factors (citing Mahata v Chigumira NO & Anor 2004 (1) ZLR 88(H) at 92D-E). The court also observed that the fundamental precept of proper administration of justice requires that an accused person must stand trial, and if there is any properly founded suggestion that he will abscond if released from custody, the court should uphold the demands of justice by refusing bail even at the expense of the liberty of the accused and the presumption of innocence (citing S v Fourie 1973 (1) SA 100(D) at 101).

This case illustrates the application of constitutional bail rights under the new Constitution of Zimbabwe (ss 50(1)(d) and 70(1)(a)) balanced against the interests of justice in serious criminal matters. It demonstrates how Zimbabwean courts assess bail applications in murder cases, particularly where the offense involves aggravating circumstances (attempted rape), strong evidence linking the accused to the crime, and evidence of attempts to conceal evidence. The case affirms that despite constitutional guarantees of bail and presumption of innocence, these rights must be balanced against the proper administration of justice, especially in serious cases with strong evidence and high flight risk.