Tafirenyika Manga v The State

The applicant was incarcerated in remand prison on allegations of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Cap 9:23]. He was alleged to have fraudulently converted to his own use 30 tonnes of fertilizer valued at US$16,200.00 which he had been contracted to transport. The offence was allegedly committed in December 2009. The applicant evaded arrest until November 2010 when he was arrested on a different charge. He was denied bail by a magistrate on the basis that he was a high flight risk. The applicant's defence was that he had instructed one Muchada to transport the fertilizer, but he did not advise the complainant of this arrangement nor did he seek explanation from Muchada as to why the fertilizer did not reach its destination.

• Whether the magistrate misdirected himself in denying the applicant bail
• Whether the applicant posed a flight risk justifying refusal of bail
• Whether the applicant's prior evasion of arrest was a relevant consideration in denying bail
• Whether the applicant had discharged the onus of establishing that his admission to bail would not compromise the ends of justice

The appeal against the refusal of bail was dismissed.

Where an applicant for bail has demonstrably evaded arrest for an extended period and was only apprehended when arrested on an unrelated charge, and cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the inability of police to locate him, the court is justified in finding that the applicant poses a flight risk and in refusing bail. The onus rests on the accused to establish that admission to bail will not compromise the ends of justice, and evidence of prior evasion of arrest is strong indication that the accused is likely to abscond if granted bail.

The court emphasized the importance of the right to liberty as a fundamental human right and noted that in the absence of compelling reasons, courts should lean in favor of the enjoyment of liberty rather than its extinction. The court also reiterated the undesirability of pre-trial incarceration and that suspects should not be imprisoned unless it is absolutely unavoidable in the public interest and the due administration of justice. These observations underscore that while the right to bail is important, it must be balanced against the need to ensure that accused persons stand trial and that justice is not compromised.

This case reinforces the principle that an accused person's conduct in evading arrest prior to apprehension is a relevant and weighty consideration in bail determinations. It demonstrates the application of the S v Hussey precedent and affirms that courts will uphold refusals of bail where there is evidence of flight risk, notwithstanding the constitutional right to liberty and the presumption of innocence. The case illustrates the proper approach magistrates should take in bail applications, balancing fundamental rights against the interests of justice and the risk of absconding.