Welington Mazhindu v Chairperson Police Service Commission and Others

The applicant was a sergeant in the Zimbabwe Republic Police with over 10 years of service. He was elected treasurer of the Glory of God Burial Society by virtue of being a police officer. In August 2009, the society entrusted him with US$550.00 and ZAR 3,300.00 to keep as a cash float for sudden bereavements. At the end of August 2012, when the society held a meeting to review finances, the applicant absented himself and became elusive. When eventually found, he confessed to using all the money and promised to repay by 5 October 2012, but failed to do so. He appeared before the Police Disciplinary Board charged with acting in an unbecoming manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Force under section 35 of the schedule to the Police Act read with section 34. He pleaded guilty, explaining he had used the money for his wife's medical expenses before she died. He was fined ten dollars. A criminal case was withdrawn after he paid $400 back and the complainant (Happymore Charamba) withdrew charges on humanitarian grounds. The Commissioner General of Police subsequently discharged him from the force. The applicant sought review of this decision and reinstatement with benefits.

• Whether the decision to discharge the applicant from the Zimbabwe Republic Police was lawful
• Whether a police officer who misappropriates funds entrusted to him by a burial society commits conduct unbecoming that brings discredit to the police force
• Whether the withdrawal of criminal charges on humanitarian grounds negates the finding of misconduct

The application for review was dismissed.

A member of the police force who is entrusted with custody of money from a burial society or other organisation by virtue of being a police officer, and who breaches that trust by misappropriating the money, is guilty of acting in an unbecoming manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the police force under section 35 of the schedule to the Police Act read with section 34. Any dishonest officer is not worthy to remain in the police organization, and the Commissioner General of Police is entitled to discharge such an officer. The withdrawal of criminal charges on humanitarian grounds does not negate a finding that the officer committed the misconduct, particularly where the withdrawal was based on the officer's admission and willingness to make restitution.

The court observed that the applicant's afterthought argument regarding burial society overdraft provisions was clearly without merit and false, as he never approached the society for an overdraft, failed to inform the society about using the money, absented himself from meetings, and became elusive when officials tried to contact him. The court noted these facts demonstrated the dishonest nature of his conduct rather than any legitimate use of society provisions.

This case establishes principles regarding police disciplinary proceedings and the standard of conduct expected of police officers in Zimbabwe. It confirms that police officers can be lawfully discharged for conduct that brings the force into disrepute, even when occurring outside their official duties. The case demonstrates that officers who hold positions of trust by virtue of their police status and breach that trust through dishonesty are subject to dismissal. It also clarifies that withdrawal of criminal charges on humanitarian grounds does not preclude disciplinary action or negate findings of misconduct in disciplinary proceedings.