Marufu Vhimba and Kasiya Kololo and Remember Mabvidzi v The State

On 8 July 2022 at Total Service Station Rusape, Manicaland, all three applicants were found by detectives in possession of a dead pangolin in contravention of s 45(1)(b) of the Parks and Wild Life Act [Chapter 20:14] read with SI 70 of 2020. The applicants were travelling in a silver Toyota Baby Quantum belonging to the second applicant. Police detectives posed as potential buyers and lured the applicants. The pangolin was found stashed in a 10kg polythene bag behind the driver's seat. Cellphone number 0777 925 402 belonging to the first applicant was allegedly used to communicate with the potential buyers, and all three applicants allegedly negotiated the purchase price. The first and second applicants were police detectives stationed at ZRP Inyati, while the third applicant was unemployed. The applicants claimed they were giving transport to commuters including the third applicant and two other men, and that one passenger who fled the scene was responsible for the pangolin. They denied knowledge of the pangolin.

• Whether the applicants had established they were entitled to bail pending trial
• Whether the State had shown compelling reasons to justify detention of the applicants
• Whether the applicants were likely to abscond if granted bail given the serious nature of the charges and strength of the State's case

The application for bail was dismissed. All three applicants were to remain in detention pending trial.

Where applicants for bail are charged with serious wildlife offences involving possession of endangered species (pangolin), and the State's case is strong as evidenced by alleged joint negotiation of the purchase price and possession in their vehicle, and the applicants' explanations contain unexplained inconsistencies and late additions, the State can establish compelling reasons to justify detention pending trial based on the likelihood of absconding given the serious nature of potential sentence upon conviction.

The court observed that while all accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty, this presumption does not automatically entitle them to bail where compelling reasons for detention exist. The court also noted with apparent concern that two of the applicants were serving police detectives, though this did not feature explicitly in the legal reasoning. The judge's request for additional explanation about cellphone usage suggests judicial vigilance in scrutinizing bail applications, and the court's criticism of information "not anywhere in the original papers" indicates disapproval of belatedly added explanations in bail proceedings.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to bail applications in serious wildlife crimes, particularly involving endangered species like pangolins. It illustrates how courts assess the strength of the State's case and risk of absconding when determining whether compelling reasons exist to deny bail. The case also shows the court's willingness to scrutinize inconsistencies and late additions to applicants' explanations in bail proceedings. It reinforces that involvement of law enforcement officers (two applicants were police detectives) does not guarantee bail where serious wildlife offences are alleged and the evidence is strong.