Charles Chekenyere and Marshal Mutekwa v The State

Between July 2021 and November 2021, there was a spate of armed robberies in Beitbridge. The applicants were alleged to have organized themselves into a well-coordinated armed gang that broke into residential properties armed with pistols and robbed complainants of valuables including cash, laptops, cellphones, and electronic gadgets. On 11 November 2021 at around 1600 hours, detectives from CID Beitbridge received a tip-off and arrested the applicants and their co-accused. Upon arrest, they were found in possession of stolen goods including an FN pistol, a souvenir watch (recovered from 2nd applicant), a Macbook laptop (recovered from 1st applicant), weapons (axe, bolt cutter), and several vehicles allegedly being proceeds of crime. Video-recorded indications were made by the applicants. The applicants faced eleven counts of robbery, one count of money laundering, and one count of contravening the Firearms Act. Police investigations revealed that the applicants had pending cases of a similar nature in Masvingo and Zvishavane. The applicants denied involvement and claimed they were wrongly implicated.

• Whether the applicants were suitable candidates for bail
• Whether there were compelling reasons to deny bail under section 50 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
• Whether the applicants presented a reasonably possibly true defence
• Whether the applicants posed a flight risk

The application for bail was dismissed.

Where an applicant for bail is found in possession of property allegedly stolen during robberies and the state's case is strong, the applicant must advance a defence that is reasonably possibly true and cannot rely on bare denials. Where the state case is strong, coupled with a high likelihood of conviction and a long prison sentence, the chances of abscondment are real and constitute compelling reasons to deny bail. The existence of pending cases of a similar nature, similar modus operandi, multiple counts, and evidence of attempted flight during arrest are relevant factors indicating that an applicant is a flight risk and not a suitable candidate for bail.

The court noted that even though the presumption of innocence operates in favour of the applicants because they have not yet been convicted, the similar modus operandi in the commission of the robberies and the number of counts they are facing shows that applicants may commit similar offences if bail is granted. The court also noted approvingly that a co-accused, Arnold Musimudziwa, was granted bail after it was shown that he was not linked to the offences, indicating a differentiated approach based on individual circumstances and evidence.

This case illustrates the application of constitutional bail principles in Zimbabwe, particularly in cases involving serious organized crime with multiple counts. It demonstrates the court's approach to assessing bail applications where applicants are found in possession of allegedly stolen property and face multiple charges of a similar nature in different jurisdictions. The case reinforces the principle that bare denials are insufficient when the state presents strong evidence linking accused persons to crimes, and that the existence of pending similar charges, coupled with flight risk indicators, constitute compelling reasons to deny bail under section 50 of the Constitution.