The applicant was an attested member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police. On 9 February 2009, he was charged before a Regional Magistrate in Harare for contravening section 93 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9:23 (unlawful deprivation of freedom). The charge related to an incident on 14 July 2009 where he allegedly deprived Kimberly Tafadzwa Nyamukapa of her freedom of bodily movement. He was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, with 2 years suspended for 5 years on conditions of good behaviour. While in Harare Prison awaiting determination of his bail pending appeal, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner General of Police) discharged him from the force on 10 February 2011 as unfit due to misconduct. He was released on bail on 23 March 2011. On 5 April 2011, when shown the police radio message of his discharge, he lodged an appeal. He applied for review of the decision to dismiss him, arguing that the 2nd respondent committed errors of law and fact by dismissing him without instituting a disciplinary trial and Board of Inquiry in terms of section 50 of the Police Act.
The application for review was dismissed.
Under section 48 of the Police Act Chapter 11:10, where a member (non-commissioned) of the Zimbabwe Republic Police is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, the Commissioner General of Police has the statutory power to discharge that member with effect from the date of conviction, without the need to conduct a disciplinary trial or Board of Inquiry. The suspension of execution of sentence by way of appeal does not prevent or postpone the Commissioner's power to discharge under section 48. The procedural protections available to 'officers' (commissioned ranks) under section 49, including inquiries under the Commission of Inquiry Act, do not apply to ordinary 'members'.
The court made observations distinguishing the purpose of a Board of Inquiry under section 50, noting that such boards are established to inquire into the suitability or fitness of a regular force member to remain in the force, which is a different situation from one where there is already a conviction for an offence followed by a term of imprisonment. This suggests that once there is a criminal conviction with a custodial sentence, the Board of Inquiry procedure becomes inapplicable as the member's unfitness has already been judicially determined.
This case clarifies the procedural rights and protections available to different ranks within the Zimbabwe Republic Police when facing dismissal following criminal conviction. It establishes that ordinary members (as opposed to commissioned officers) do not have the same procedural protections, and that the Commissioner General has statutory authority under section 48 of the Police Act to summarily discharge members convicted and sentenced to imprisonment without requiring a disciplinary hearing or Board of Inquiry. The case also confirms that pending appeals do not suspend the Commissioner's power to discharge under section 48.