The four appellants were employees of Givemore Renzva, who operated mining claims at the Chitsero mining area. There was a longstanding dispute between the complainant (Nathan Tendai Munyuchi) and his father on one side, and Givemore Renzva on the other, concerning mining claims. In July 2019, approximately 30 people invaded Givemore Renzva's mining site, allegedly incited by the complainant, though he denied this. The invaders brought machetes which were recovered and taken to police by the appellants. To resolve the situation, the appellants, accompanied by other employees and persons from the compound, walked to the complainant's site to engage him about the invasion. The State alleged that the appellants, acting in common purpose with the crowd, unlawfully disturbed peace by throwing stones at the complainant's premises, causing damage to windows and the roof. The appellants were convicted of public violence under s 36(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and sentenced to 36 months imprisonment (with 16 months suspended conditionally), leaving an effective sentence of 20 months.
The appeal against both conviction and sentence succeeded. The verdict of the Magistrates Court was set aside and substituted with 'The accused persons are found not guilty.'
A conviction for public violence cannot be sustained where: (1) The State's witnesses materially contradict each other on essential elements of the offence; (2) The only neutral witness (the investigating officer) provides exculpatory evidence which is rejected without proper basis; (3) The trial court fails to properly address material contradictions in the State's case and selectively accepts only evidence supporting conviction; (4) Some State witnesses were themselves part of the alleged criminal activity but were not charged. A trial court commits a serious misdirection when it dismisses exculpatory evidence from an un-impeached witness without proper justification, particularly when that witness is the investigating officer and the only neutral witness, while all other witnesses are employees of the complainant with a potential interest in the outcome.
The court observed that 'it was clear that a force outside the investigation team was pushing for the prosecution of the appellants against the clear advice of the investigating officer.' This suggests concern about improper external influence on prosecutorial decisions. The court also noted that two State witnesses (Dyke Mupuwa and Andrew Mukuzunga) were part of the crowd that went to the complainant's site and entered the premises, with the only apparent reason they were not arrested being that they were employed at the complainant's mine, suggesting potential inconsistency in the prosecution's approach.
This case demonstrates the importance of proper evaluation of evidence in criminal cases, particularly where: (1) State witnesses contradict each other on material facts; (2) Exculpatory evidence is given by neutral witnesses, especially investigating officers; (3) The court must not selectively accept evidence that supports conviction while ignoring contradictions and exculpatory evidence; (4) The prosecution's case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rest on contradictory evidence from interested witnesses. The case also illustrates the proper application of s 35 of the High Court Act, where the State may concede that a conviction is unsafe, and reinforces standards for evaluating credibility when witnesses have an interest in the outcome.