Kudzanai Vheru and 22 Others v The State

On 4 December 2009 in Chiwarika Village, Shamva, the appellants who were police officers of different ranks went on a rampage, rounding up villagers and assaulting them in various forms. The assault included forcing complainants to remove their clothes, having water poured on them, and having their faces drenched in muddy water. The offence was masterminded by the first and second accused, with the rest of the officers participating in varying degrees. All appellants admitted through admissions to participating in going to Chiwarika Village to collect the complainants. The appellants were charged with assault as defined in s 89 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23].

• Whether the conviction was supported by the evidence before the lower court
• Whether the defence of obedience to lawful orders was applicable
• Whether the appellants acted in common purpose in committing the assault
• Whether the sentence of 6 months imprisonment was appropriate or should be reduced to a fine or community service

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The defence of obedience to lawful orders is inapplicable where the orders are so manifestly illegal that a reasonable person in the accused's position could not have felt obliged to obey such instructions; (2) Police officers who participate in varying degrees in a coordinated assault on civilians act in common purpose and are all criminally liable for the assault; (3) Police brutality and abuse of power warrant custodial sentences as opposed to fines or community service, particularly where officers traumatize complainants without lawful justification.

The court made non-binding observations that: (1) The conduct by the appellants was reminiscent of police brutalities that characterized Zimbabwe before independence; (2) Imposing a fine or community service would have left complainants feeling that the appellants were immune from proper retribution by virtue of their positions; (3) The case represented "one of the worst forms of police brutality"; (4) The comment "The appellants chose to dive into the deeper end they must carry their cross" reflects the court's view that the appellants brought the consequences upon themselves through their voluntary conduct.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal jurisprudence as it clearly establishes that police officers cannot rely on the defence of obedience to orders when those orders are manifestly illegal. It demonstrates the courts' strong stance against police brutality and abuse of power, holding that such conduct warrants custodial sentences rather than fines or community service. The case reinforces the principle that police officers who act in common purpose to assault civilians will be held criminally accountable, and that their positions as law enforcement officers will not shield them from proper retribution. The judgment draws a clear line against police brutalities reminiscent of the pre-independence era.