The State v Luckson Jonga and Others

Six accused persons were charged with murder arising from events on 5 January 2021 at Mukaradzi Gold Panning Site, Mt Darwin. All accused were employed by Roy Rama Mining Syndicate, while the deceased, Donaldson Chakwitisa, was employed by Makaha Mining Syndicate. There was a long-standing dispute between the two mining syndicates over the same mining claim. The State alleged that the accused persons, armed with stones, machetes and iron bars, attacked the deceased and his workmates, chasing the deceased for about 2km before stoning him to death. A post mortem revealed the cause of death as head injury. The accused denied involvement, claiming they intervened to stop a mob of over 200 artisanal miners from assaulting people accused of being machete gangs, and that they rescued injured persons and took them to the police station and hospital. Video footage showed a mob assaulting victims including Anthony Matanga (a key witness), but none of the accused persons appeared in the footage. The person who threw the fatal stone was identified in the video as someone wearing orange, not any of the accused.

• Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons murdered the deceased
• The credibility of conflicting eyewitness testimony
• The adequacy and quality of police investigations
• The application of the test for discharge at the close of the State case under s198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act
• The evidential value of video footage in identifying perpetrators

The court found all six accused persons not guilty of murder and acquitted them.

Where the State's case relies on eyewitness testimony but key witnesses give contradictory accounts of material facts, and where one witness's credibility is undermined by multiple inconsistencies while another witness's account is corroborated by objective evidence (such as video footage), the court must prefer the more credible evidence. The State must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and where investigation is deficient—including failure to secure relevant video evidence, failure to conduct identification parades, and failure to investigate exculpatory evidence—and where credible evidence establishes the accused were not present at the crime scene, an acquittal must follow. Police have a constitutional duty under s219(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe to investigate crime without fear or favour, and arrests should be based on evidence, not instructions.

The court observed that the police woefully failed in their constitutional duty under section 219(1)(a) and (e) of the Constitution to detect, investigate and prevent crime and to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law without fear or favour. The court noted that the facts supported the accused's assertion that their arrest was based on an 'instruction' rather than evidence, stating: 'Such conduct should not be allowed to happen. It results in a waste of State resources and harassment of citizens. That should not be.' The court also observed that there appeared to be 'some other hand protecting' the individuals identified in the video footage who walked away scot-free despite their identities being known, suggesting possible interference in the investigation. The court noted it was 'curious' and indicative of untruthfulness that the same witness could give two completely different versions of the same events occurring at the same time in separate police statements.

This case highlights critical issues in Zimbabwean criminal justice: (1) the importance of thorough and impartial police investigations in fulfilling constitutional obligations under s219(1) of the Constitution; (2) the need for careful assessment of conflicting eyewitness testimony and credibility; (3) the evidential value of video footage in identifying perpetrators; (4) the dangers of police acting on 'instructions' to arrest rather than following evidence; and (5) the proper application of the reasonable doubt standard. The judgment criticized police failures to investigate exculpatory evidence and emphasized that such conduct wastes State resources and harasses citizens. It demonstrates judicial willingness to scrutinize investigation quality and acquit where the State fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite apparently strong initial evidence.