Canaan Tshuma v The State

On 28 March 2022 at around 14:30 hours, detectives from the Criminal Investigations Department, Minerals, Flora and Fauna Unit, Bulawayo were on patrol when they stopped and searched the applicant along a road in Burnside, Bulawayo. The detectives recovered 26 pangolin scales from the applicant's left inside jacket pocket, wrapped in black plastic paper. The applicant failed to produce a permit for possession of the pangolin scales. The scales were confirmed by an Ecologist to be pangolin scales, weighing 0.166kgs with a value of US$5,000. The applicant was charged with possession of a specially protected trophy in contravention of section 45 of the Parks and Wildlife Act. The applicant's defence was that the jacket belonged to his friend Justice Mangombe from Emakhandeni, whom he had met for drinks the previous night. He claimed he borrowed the jacket because it was cold and was unaware of the scales in the pocket.

• Whether the applicant had a recognizable defence to the charge of possession of specially protected trophy
• Whether there were compelling reasons to deny bail
• Whether the applicant possessed the requisite mens rea for the offence
• Whether the interests of justice required the denial of bail

The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.

In bail applications involving charges of possession of specially protected trophies under the Parks and Wildlife Act, bail will be denied where: (1) the state has established a strong prima facie case; (2) the accused's defence is contrived, amounts to a bare denial, and cannot be said to be reasonably possibly true; (3) there are compelling reasons for denial including the likelihood of a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence (9 years) which creates a flight risk; and (4) the interests of justice would be compromised by granting bail. A recognizable defence at law must be reasonably probable and believable to an ordinary right-thinking person, not far-fetched and unbelievable.

The court observed that pangolin scales are not ordinary articles that could find themselves into someone's jacket without their knowledge. The court noted that if the alleged owner Mangombe truly possessed the scales legally, he would have laid claim to them and provided supporting evidence through an affidavit. The court remarked that the applicant's stance appeared to be that the state must disprove his defence for his version to be rejected, which is not the correct approach in bail applications.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' strict approach to bail applications involving offences related to specially protected wildlife species, particularly pangolins. It illustrates the application of the principle that where compelling reasons exist, particularly in cases involving mandatory minimum sentences and strong prima facie evidence, bail will be denied. The case emphasizes the court's duty to protect endangered species through the criminal justice system and reinforces that defences in bail applications must be reasonably probable and credible, not merely bare denials or far-fetched explanations.