Solomon Manyama v The State

On 13 April 2021, the applicant allegedly connived with a co-accused to kill two children. After a School Development Committee meeting, the applicant took the two children home as they resided in the same area. The applicant allegedly met up with the co-accused who was in the bush and killed the two children by inflicting deep cuts in their necks. The applicant and co-accused allegedly covered blood stains on the grass with soil and concealed the bodies of the children in an unused blair toilet in the bush. The bodies were retrieved after a search on 14 April 2021, leading to the arrest of the applicant and co-accused. A hoe and blood-stained clothing (t-shirt and trousers) of the applicant and co-accused were recovered. The applicant applied for bail pending trial, denying the allegations and arguing he was only apprehended because he confirmed seeing the children on the day in question. The key witness who observed the applicant with the deceased children was the mother of the applicant's co-accused.

• Whether the applicant should be granted bail pending trial on a murder charge
• Whether there were compelling reasons justifying continued detention under section 50 of the Constitution
• Whether the interests of justice would be served by granting bail considering the seriousness of the offence, strength of the state case, and likelihood of absconding
• Application of section 117 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding factors to consider in bail applications

The application for bail pending trial was dismissed.

The binding principle is that while the seriousness of an offence alone is insufficient to deny bail, when considered cumulatively with the nature of the allegations (premeditated murder in aggravatory circumstances), the strength of the state case, the likely lengthy sentence or capital punishment if convicted, and the real risk of absconding, compelling reasons can exist to justify continued detention under section 50 of the Constitution. The admission of an applicant to bail would be denied where it would undermine or jeopardize the objective or proper functioning of the criminal justice system, including when the combination of serious charges, strong evidence, and likelihood of severe punishment creates a real inducement to abscond.

The court took judicial notice that the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border boundaries in Nyanga are porous and often used for crossing between the two countries. The court cited S v Jongwe SC 251/2002 for the proposition that the risk of absconding becomes high where prospects of conviction and lengthy imprisonment are a certainty. The court observed that the nature of the murder in this case appeared to be premeditated murder committed in aggravatory circumstances, possibly for ritual purposes.

This is a Zimbabwean case, not a South African case. It demonstrates the application of constitutional bail provisions under the Zimbabwean Constitution (section 50) and the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (section 117) in cases involving serious criminal charges. The case illustrates how courts balance the constitutional right to liberty and presumption of innocence against compelling reasons for continued detention, particularly in cases involving serious offences like murder where the strength of the state case, likelihood of severe sentences, and risk of absconding create compelling reasons to deny bail. While not binding in South Africa, it reflects similar principles found in South African bail jurisprudence regarding the balancing of individual liberty and interests of justice.