Freezim Congress v Mr Moses Boora N.O and Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police

The applicant is a political party. On 30 April 2018, police seized 50,000 T-shirts belonging to the applicant along the Bulawayo-Beitbridge highway at Makhado. The driver was ordered to return to Beitbridge police station as he was carrying campaign material. At the police station, the T-shirts were declared under seizure and the truck was detained at ZIMRA Warehouse pending investigations. The applicant's representative made two visits to Beitbridge to enquire about the seizure but received no satisfactory answer. No charges were initially laid for 11 days. ZIMRA officials indicated they had no grounds to suspect smuggling. On 10 May 2018, when the applicant's representatives visited with a copy of the urgent application, the first respondent became hostile and detained them. They were charged with smuggling on 11 May 2018, but the prosecutor declined to prosecute the charge. The applicant sought urgent relief to recover the T-shirts for the upcoming campaign season.

• Whether the police had reasonable grounds to seize the T-shirts without a warrant
• What constitutes a 'reasonable suspicion' for purposes of seizure under the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a temporary interdict
• Whether the continued detention of the T-shirts was justified in law
• Whether the police acted fairly and reasonably or arbitrarily in exercising their powers

The court granted the interim relief sought, ordering that the first respondent release or cause to be released to the applicant the 50,000 T-shirts seized on 30 April 2018 from the vehicle driven by Ethan Singola, Hino truck bearing registration number ABQ 5627.

For police to seize property without a warrant on the basis of reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed, the suspicion must be a reasonable one - a well-grounded, factually sound suspicion based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences. It must not be an inchoate, unparticularised suspicion or 'hunch'. The reasonable person must analyze and assess the quality of information critically before entertaining a suspicion, and the suspicion must be based on solid grounds, otherwise it will be flighty or arbitrary. Police must show they believed on reasonable grounds that a warrant would be issued if applied for, and that seeking one would defeat the ends of justice. A mere inability of a person to give a satisfactory answer about the source of goods, without more, is insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

The court made observations about the importance of protecting civil liberties enshrined in the constitution, noting that members of the public would be seriously inconvenienced in their day-to-day business if any suspicion by a police officer, even one 'plucked from the air', could entail restriction of freedom of movement, association, and freedom to conduct daily business. The court also commented that in policing, police officers are encouraged to act fairly and reasonably so that civil liberties are not unnecessarily curtailed. The court observed that the charges appeared to have been laid as punishment for launching the application, suggesting possible improper motive by the police.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it clarifies the legal standard for 'reasonable suspicion' required for police seizure of property without a warrant. It emphasizes that civil liberties enshrined in the constitution cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, and that police must have well-grounded, factually sound justification before interfering with citizens' rights. The case reinforces the principle that police must act fairly and reasonably, not arbitrarily, in exercising their powers. It also demonstrates judicial protection of political parties' rights during campaign periods and guards against abuse of police powers for potentially political purposes.