The State v Tarisai Rugare Chiriga

The accused was charged with three counts of extortion as defined in s 134 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The accused told three of his ZAOGA Kuwadzana Church mates that he had joined the Central Intelligence Organisation and was based at State House as an escort driver responsible for killing people by throwing them in acid. On several occasions during November and December 2015, the accused would telephone the complainants pretending to be George Charamba or Vice President Mnangagwa, and demanded money threatening that the complainants would be killed in Chishawasha by being thrown in acid if they refused. The accused extorted a total of US$1,510.00 in count one, US$450.00 and a silver jacket in count two, and a G Tel 706 mobile phone handset and USB cable in count three. The accused also took one complainant's original birth certificate claiming it was required by the President. The accused was arrested after a trap when he came to collect $60.00 which he had demanded.

• Whether the magistrate imposed an appropriate sentence for three counts of extortion involving impersonation of high government officials
• Whether the sentence was sufficiently deterrent given the gravity of the offences and the abuse of the names of the President, Vice President and Central Intelligence Organisation

The court withheld its certificate of confirmation, finding that the sentence imposed by the magistrate was not in accordance with real and substantial justice due to its excessive leniency.

In cases of extortion involving the calculated and planned impersonation of high government officials (such as the President and Vice President) and abuse of state institutions (such as the Central Intelligence Organisation), courts must impose sufficiently stiff and deterrent sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of the offences to send a clear message to would-be offenders and protect the integrity of these offices and institutions. A sentence that fails to adequately reflect the seriousness of such offences is not in accordance with real and substantial justice and will be set aside on review.

The court observed that the taking of the complainant's original birth certificate should have been charged as a separate count, although it was incorporated in the first count. The court also noted that the modus operandi used by the accused was consistent across all three counts, demonstrating a calculated pattern of criminal behaviour.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean criminal law as it demonstrates the High Court's exercise of its review powers over sentences in extortion cases, particularly where high government offices and institutions are brought into disrepute. The judgment emphasizes that courts must impose sufficiently deterrent sentences in cases involving calculated schemes to impersonate high-ranking government officials and abuse state institutions for personal gain. It underscores the principle that sentences must serve not only the interests of the individual accused but also broader societal interests in protecting the integrity of state institutions and deterring similar offences.