Givemore Sigauke and Dudzai Njobo v The State

On 10 August 2021, police detectives in Mutare received information that the two appellants were in illegal possession of two live pangolins. Posing as potential buyers, detectives contacted the first appellant by cell phone and met him at Nyanga turnoff along Mutare-Harare highway. First appellant indicated that the pangolins were with the second appellant at Kazozo Township. They proceeded to Kazozo where first appellant introduced second appellant to the detectives. Second appellant informed the detectives that the pangolins were in Fombe area near a clinic. On 11 August 2021 at 0130 hours, both appellants instructed detectives to stop the car at a nearby bush, disembarked and entered the bush. After a few minutes, both appellants emerged holding a sack with two live pangolins valued at US$10,000. The detectives then revealed their identities and arrested both appellants. Both appellants pleaded not guilty, claiming a third person named Aaron Madzima was responsible and that they thought chickens, not pangolins, were being sold. The trial court rejected this defense and convicted both appellants.

• Whether the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure to call Detective Constable Dzviti as a witness
• Whether the trial court erred in finding that Aaron Madzima was a fictitious person without evidence disproving his existence
• Whether contradictions in State witnesses' evidence rendered their testimony unreliable
• Whether the mandatory sentence under s 128(1)(b) was appropriate where the pangolins were recovered alive, or whether a fine under s 45(1)(b) should have been imposed

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Where the State proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were in physical and mental possession of specially protected animals (pangolins) and were involved in attempting to sell them, conviction under s 45(1)(b) read with s 128 of the Parks and Wildlife Act is justified. The fact that specially protected animals were recovered alive does not constitute special circumstances sufficient to justify departure from the mandatory sentence prescribed by s 128(1)(b). The failure to call a particular witness (Detective Constable Dzviti) is not fatal to the State's case where other witnesses provide consistent and credible evidence of the material facts. The existence or non-existence of a third party alleged to be responsible (Aaron Madzima) is not determinative where the evidence establishes the accused persons' own involvement in the offense.

The court made observations about the proper format for appeals and prayers for relief in criminal matters. The court noted that grounds of appeal should not be vague, repetitive, or argumentative. The prayer should unambiguously state whether the appeal succeeds, followed by the specific order setting aside the lower court's order and substituting it with the appellate order. The court observed that an application to amend defective appeal papers should be made at the outset of proceedings, not during reply submissions. The court also commented that counsel for appellant properly conceded that multiple grounds of appeal (5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) were meandering, vague, and argumentative, and essentially buttressed the first ground. The court noted it could not see any plausible reason why police detectives would travel at night to plant pangolins on innocent persons.

This case establishes important principles regarding wildlife protection in Zimbabwe, particularly concerning pangolins as specially protected animals. It clarifies that the recovery of live (rather than dead) specially protected animals does not constitute special circumstances warranting departure from mandatory sentences. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to sting operations involving undercover police officers posing as buyers in wildlife trafficking cases, and the standards for evaluating credibility of police testimony against accused persons' defenses. It further illustrates the importance of properly drafted grounds of appeal and prayers for relief, with the court noting numerous grounds were vague, repetitive, and argumentative.