Bongani Mapfumo v State

The applicant, Bongani Mapfumo, was a security guard employed by Fawcett Security. On 25 November 2021, he was driving a cash-in-transit Isuzu van from Bulawayo to Harare with three co-workers (Thomas Chisambadzi, Langelilile Moyo and Emmanuel Nhamo), transporting US$305,290. At the 243km peg near Connemara open prison, the crew was allegedly robbed by four passengers they had picked up. The robbers allegedly struck the crew with spanners, disarmed them of their CZ pistol and six rounds of ammunition, stole three mobile handsets and made away with the cash. The State alleged that the applicant orchestrated the robbery with accomplices, including Blessing Lizhu and Agrippa Mloyi. The applicant initially told police they were robbed by persons pretending to be police officers, then changed his story to say they were robbed by passengers. According to the investigating officer, the applicant later confessed to planning the robbery with accomplices. Police recovered US$18,750 from Blessing Lizhu's house in Bulawayo and a getaway motor vehicle (Honda Fit) from Agrippa Mloyi's residence. The applicant applied for bail pending trial, denying involvement and claiming he was a victim of the robbery.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial
• Whether there were compelling reasons to refuse bail based on likelihood of abscondment
• Whether the strength of the State's case and gravity of the offence justified refusal of bail
• Whether the applicant should be treated equally with co-accused Agrippa Mloyi who had been granted bail

The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.

In bail applications, compelling reasons to refuse bail based on likelihood of abscondment can be established where: (1) the State has a strong prima facie case against the accused; (2) the offence is serious and carries a substantial custodial sentence upon conviction; (3) the accused has provided inconsistent and implausible explanations for the events in question; and (4) evidence directly links the accused to the commission of the offence and recovery of proceeds. The strength of the State's case is assessed by considering the totality of evidence available, not isolated discrepancies in witness statements. Jointly charged accused persons may be treated differently for bail purposes where their individual circumstances, connection to the offence, or the evidence against them differs materially. The constitutional right to bail under section 50(1)(d) is not absolute and must yield to compelling reasons justifying refusal, assessed with reference to section 117(2)(a)(ii) and (3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act.

The court observed that it is highly illogical, counter-intuitive and contrary to common sense for a driver of a cash-in-transit vehicle carrying a large sum of money to offer a lift to four unknown male strangers, as this defeats the very purpose of armed protection of cash. The court noted that the State's ambivalence regarding whether the applicant's co-workers were complicit or victims, while worthy of censure, did not detract from the strength of the evidence against the applicant himself. The court commented that discrepancies regarding the description of the getaway vehicle and the name appearing in a witness statement were matters to be ventilated at trial, where the court would assess evidence holistically rather than focusing too intently on individual discrepancies. The court noted that robbery committed in aggravated circumstances is viewed very seriously and almost invariably attracts severe punishment, particularly where committed by a security guard against his own employer.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to bail applications in serious robbery cases involving cash-in-transit heists. It demonstrates how courts balance the constitutional right to bail under section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution against compelling reasons for refusal, particularly where there is a strong State case combined with the gravity of the offence and likelihood of a severe sentence. The judgment reinforces that inconsistent explanations by an accused, failure to provide detailed accounts of alleged events, and evidence linking the accused to recovered proceeds can collectively establish a likelihood of abscondment. It also clarifies that differential treatment of co-accused in bail applications may be justified based on their respective connections to the offence and the evidence against them.