The State v Raphael Tandi and Ravious Zata and Dellon Tizora

Three accused persons were charged with unlawful entry into premises under section 131 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On 26 April 2025, at approximately 2100 hours, the accused allegedly forcibly opened a window and entered the complainant's home in Waterfalls, Harare, while she was asleep, and stole two cell phones. Following police investigations, one phone was recovered from Tatenda Mpofu who implicated accused one. Accused one allegedly implicated accused two and three after arrest. All three pleaded not guilty but were convicted after trial and sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment each, with 3 months suspended for good behaviour and 1 month suspended on condition of restitution, resulting in an effective sentence of 20 months. The matter came before the High Court on automatic review.

• Whether the trial proceedings met the threshold of real and substantial justice
• Whether the trial magistrate properly complied with sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding defence outlines
• Whether witnesses were properly sworn in accordance with sections 249-251 of the CPEA
• Whether unrepresented accused persons were adequately informed of their right to cross-examine witnesses
• Whether the accused were properly informed of their rights when put to their defence under sections 198(6)-(9) and 199(1) of the CPEA
• Whether the pre-sentence inquiry and sentencing process were conducted in accordance with proper procedure
• Whether the trial judgment was legally sound and met the required standard of judicial reasoning

The convictions of all three accused persons were quashed. The sentences of 24 months' imprisonment (with suspensions) were set aside. The accused persons were entitled to refund of any restitution paid. Warrants of liberation were issued for immediate release. The Prosecutor-General was given liberty to institute fresh proceedings before a different magistrate. The judgment was to be brought to the attention of the Chief Magistrate and the Prosecutor-General.

Where a trial is characterized by multiple fundamental procedural irregularities including: failure to properly explain the right to silence and defence outline requirements under sections 188-189 of the CPEA; failure to properly administer and record oaths for witnesses as required by sections 249-251 CPEA; failure to adequately explain cross-examination rights to unrepresented accused; failure to properly explain the accused's rights when put to their defence under sections 198-199 CPEA; and a trial judgment that is structurally incoherent and fails to provide proper evidentiary foundation for conviction, the proceedings do not meet the threshold of real and substantial justice and the convictions must be quashed. Magistrates bear a positive obligation to ensure unrepresented accused persons understand their procedural rights and the purpose of various trial stages, and this duty is not discretionary but constitutes a fundamental procedural safeguard essential to a fair trial.

The Court expressed profound dismay at the quality of the trial magistrate's judgment, noting it was the second such deficient judgment from the same magistrate within a short period (the first being State v Michael Madzande HH 636-25). The Court observed that the pattern of errors suggested a troubling lack of understanding of basic principles of judgment writing and trial procedure, falling below the competence expected of a law graduate. The Court questioned how many of the magistrate's other cases might be affected by similar defects and whether procedural errors were being overlooked in confirmed review matters. The Court recommended that the magistrate undergo structured retraining covering all aspects of criminal adjudication including trial procedure, evidence handling, sentencing law, conduct of proceedings involving unrepresented accused, judgment writing, and English proficiency. The Court further recommended that until meaningful improvement is demonstrated, the magistrate should not continue to preside over criminal trials, as judicial competence is the bedrock of a fair and credible justice system.

This case is significant for reinforcing critical procedural safeguards in criminal trials, particularly where accused persons are unrepresented. It comprehensively sets out the duties of magistrates under the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act regarding: (1) proper explanation of defence outlines and the right to silence (sections 188-189); (2) mandatory administration and recording of oaths/affirmations for all witnesses (sections 249-251); (3) adequate explanation of cross-examination rights to unrepresented accused; (4) proper explanation of rights when put to defence (sections 198-199); and (5) correct conduct of pre-sentence proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that courts of record must meticulously document all procedural steps and that magistrates have heightened duties when dealing with unrepresented accused. It also addresses judicial accountability, recommending retraining and suspension from criminal trials for magistrates who repeatedly fail to meet minimum standards, thereby protecting the integrity of the justice system.