Ex-Constable Chitemere FT 083100A v The Commissioner General of Police and Others

The applicant was a police constable who appeared before a Single Trial Officer and was convicted for contravening paragraph 13(1) of the Schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11:10]. He did not appeal against his conviction to the Commissioner General of Police. He then appeared before an impartial Board of Inquiry (Suitability) and was discharged from the police service for being unsuitable for police duties. The applicant appealed against his discharge to the Police Service Commission (second respondent), and his appeal was dismissed. He was advised of the outcome through a radio communication which he signed acknowledging receipt. The applicant then sought to review the decision on grounds of procedural irregularities.

• Whether the Police Service Commission violated the applicant's right to be heard (audi alteram partem) by not conducting a public hearing when determining his appeal
• Whether the Commission was required to hold oral/viva voce hearings or could determine appeals on paper
• Whether the applicant was entitled to be served with the first respondent's response to his appeal
• Whether the Commission's decision was one-sided and whether it applied its mind to the facts
• Whether the Commission was lawfully constituted
• Whether the discharge from the police service was lawful and procedurally fair

The application for review was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of suit.

The binding legal principle established is that under Section 51 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] and Part V of the Police Regulations of 1965, the Police Service Commission is entitled to determine appeals against discharge on the basis of written submissions without conducting oral or public hearings. The Commission's statutory function is to ensure that procedural fairness has been observed in the disciplinary and discharge process, and this can be fulfilled through examination of the written record. Natural justice does not require oral hearings at the appellate stage where the appellant was afforded a fair hearing at the trial and board of inquiry stages, and where the regulations prescribe a paper-based appeal process.

The court observed that the applicant was a victim of misadvice from his legal practitioners. The court also commented that the Police Service Commission is an impartial institution that exercises its mandate independently without fear or favour. The court noted that the employment relationship had been severely broken such that it could not be resuscitated. The court also observed that the applicant had failed to appeal against his conviction before the Single Trial Officer to the Commissioner General of Police, taking issue only with the discharge decision of the Suitability Board.

This case clarifies the procedural requirements for appeals to the Police Service Commission in Zimbabwe under Section 51 of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] and the Police Regulations of 1965. It establishes that the Commission is not required to conduct oral hearings or public hearings when determining appeals against discharge from the police service, and that appeals may properly be determined on the basis of written submissions. The case reinforces the principle that procedural fairness (audi alteram partem) can be satisfied through written procedures and does not invariably require oral hearings at every stage of an appeal process. It also emphasizes the importance of following prescribed statutory procedures for requesting reasons for administrative decisions.