The State v Playmore Manyange

On 15 March 2020 at approximately 5:00 am, the accused Playmore Manyange, a serving police officer aged 32, together with colleagues Tapfirenyika Musekiwa and Pious Musindo, went to the homestead of the deceased Bhekani Moyo at Village Khaya, Chief Malisa, Silobela. They were armed with an FN Rifle Serial Number 3000 loaded with 10 rounds, seeking to arrest the deceased who was wanted for robbery and assault. After introducing themselves as police officers to family members, they searched the homestead and found the deceased hiding in his bedroom. The accused ordered the deceased to come out. According to the State's witnesses (the deceased's mother Sipho Munkungu and father Moffat Moyo), Pious Musindo apprehended the deceased and stood him against a wall, then moved 2 meters away, whereupon the accused shot the deceased once in the chest with the FN Rifle. The deceased died instantly. The accused claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased was wielding a knife and charging towards him after overpowering Pious Musindo in a struggle. A knife was produced as evidence by Pious Musindo six months later, but the Investigating Officer testified this procedure was improper. The matter was only investigated six months after the incident.

• Whether the accused was under unlawful attack justifying self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act
• Whether the accused reasonably believed an attack was imminent
• Whether the means used (shooting with FN Rifle) were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances
• Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea for murder under section 47(1) of the Code
• Whether a police officer effecting an arrest is justified in using lethal force
• The appropriate sentence for murder committed by a police officer in the course of duty involving use of a firearm

The accused was found guilty of murder in aggravating circumstances and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For self-defence under section 253 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to succeed, an accused must establish on reasonable grounds that an unlawful attack had commenced or was imminent - mere assertion without credible evidence is insufficient. (2) Police officers effecting arrests must use reasonable and proportionate force; the use of lethal force (firearms) is only justified when unavoidable and all other non-lethal options have been exhausted. (3) When discharging firearms, police officers must fire warning shots before shooting at a person, and must aim to injure rather than kill. (4) Shooting at the chest or other vital organs from close range without warning demonstrates intent to kill or constructive intent (realizing real risk of death) sufficient for murder under section 47(1) of the Code. (5) Police officers who unlawfully kill while on duty are subject to the same criminal liability as civilians and will be sentenced according to the Sentencing Guidelines, with their professional status constituting an aggravating rather than mitigating factor. (6) Evidence produced through improper procedure (such as exhibits held for months and not properly documented) will be treated with suspicion and may be rejected as fabricated afterthoughts.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The court questioned why it took six months for investigations to commence, noting this delay, while unfortunate, created suspense that was mitigatory for the accused. (2) The court expressed concern about the psychological trauma caused to child witnesses who observed the killing, noting one child in grade 3 now fears all police officers, which undermines public confidence in law enforcement. (3) The court observed that the constitutional mandate of police is to maintain law and order, arrest suspects and bring them to court for prosecution, not to execute suspects. (4) The court noted that members of the public must have confidence in how police investigate cases and conduct operations. (5) The court commented that even accepting the defence version that the deceased held a knife, the police officer could have used the full length of the FN Rifle as a baton to disarm the deceased rather than shooting. (6) The court emphasized the importance of police following "the golden rule of the usage of firearms" - that they must only resort to firing when inevitable and shoot to injure, not to kill.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal jurisprudence for establishing important principles regarding police use of force and accountability. It reinforces that police officers are not above the law and must exercise restraint and follow proper protocols when using firearms, even when effecting lawful arrests. The judgment emphasizes that lethal force should only be used when inevitable, and police must shoot to injure rather than kill. It demonstrates judicial willingness to scrutinize self-defence claims by law enforcement officers and reject implausible or fabricated evidence. The case also illustrates application of the Sentencing Guidelines (SI 146/2023) for murder with aggravating factors involving weapons, establishing the 20-year minimum baseline. The decision sends a clear message against "trigger-happy" policing and upholds constitutional requirements that police maintain law and order within legal limits, protecting public confidence in law enforcement.