Sibangani Dube v The State

The applicant, aged 41 years, was facing charges of contravening section 60A (3) (b) of the Electricity Act (Chapter 13:19) for cutting, damaging or stealing electricity copper cables. On an unknown date in June/July 2018, around 0100 hours along Cross-Dete/Binga road, a joint team of ZETDC and Zimbabwe Republic Police were patrolling ZESA power lines. They came across a white Honda Fit vehicle (registration ACY 7299) parked on the roadside. They set an ambush and took positions near the vehicle. When the applicant attempted to open the vehicle, he was apprehended and arrested. A search of the vehicle recovered 50 kilograms of copper cables. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming he had gone to Binga to look for fish, left his vehicle by the roadside, and upon returning to enter it was surrounded and arrested by police. He denied any knowledge of the copper cables.

• Whether the applicant was a suitable candidate for bail
• Whether the applicant had raised a recognizable defence at law
• Whether granting bail would compromise the administration of justice
• Whether the applicant had provided a defence that was reasonably possibly true
• Whether the risk of absconding warranted refusal of bail

The application for bail was dismissed.

In bail applications, while an accused person has a constitutional right to be presumed innocent and to apply for bail, the applicant must demonstrate that granting bail will not compromise the administration of justice. An accused bears no onus to prove innocence but must put forward a defence which is reasonably possibly true. A bare denial of allegations, without explanation of incriminating circumstances such as possession of stolen property found in the accused's vehicle, does not constitute a recognizable defence at law. Where the State has a strong case, the accused was caught at the crime scene in possession of stolen items, and the offence carries a mandatory custodial sentence (such as 10 years imprisonment), the risk of absconding is material and the accused may properly be found unsuitable for bail.

The court made reference to the case of S v Felody Munsaka HB-55-16, which took the view that where the State opposes bail there must be compelling reasons to deny bail. While acknowledging this principle, the court found that compelling reasons existed in the present case given the strength of the evidence, the mandatory sentence upon conviction, and the risk of absconding.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it illustrates the application of constitutional bail rights balanced against considerations of administration of justice. It demonstrates that while an accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent and considered for bail, this right must be balanced against factors such as the strength of the State's case, the severity of potential sentences, risk of absconding, and whether the accused has provided a reasonably possibly true defence. The case emphasizes that bare denials without explanation of incriminating circumstances (such as possession of stolen goods) are insufficient to establish suitability for bail, particularly where serious statutory offences with mandatory minimum sentences are involved.