Susa v Republic (Miscellaneous Case 51 of 2022) [2022] MWHC 190 (6 April 2022)

hora | REPUBEAC OF MALAWL | IN TUE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI = 97 40 5, ZOMBA DISTRICT REGISTRY) , SITTING ALT ZOMBA PRISON | MISCELLANEGQUE CASE NO, 51 OF 2022 eNO BEPWEILN DICKSON SUSA ceccsssseeeeesees bo ceeceeccsiseespescecssseeessseneseesteesrserseseeees AERO C PE ARB TIE REEPUBLIC wy ccceccesenceneenen bene eedbocaeus beset vesesreasen sn nor eenne senses erent RRSP ONDE Coram: Honourable Justice Violet Petikena-Chipae " Me. K. Chingeni, ef Counsel for the Applicant ifs. L. Kulesi, of Counsel for the Respoudet MMs. A. Kazambwe, Official Interpreter and Court Clerk RULING ON APPR ae FOR ATL, PENTHING TRIAL. |. The Applicant is Dickson Susa of Kaliati village, T/A Kachenga, Balaka District He is mm remand at Zomba Maximum Prison on allegations of murder, Ge has asked the cars! te release hin bail pending his trial. 2. The Applicant was arrested by Balaka potice on 14° Desember, 2024 on allegation: of having caused the death of lis ex-wife, Esther Minve 4. ‘The brief facts are that Ether Mtiwe and the Applicant who had divorced had a isrnie avr jancd which was bemmp occupied by the deceased. She was later found deack tia deconipesser| stale inher house on 8" November 2021 having gone missing. She was found to have been murdered using a panga knife and post inerien: report showed that death was dite fe severe head injury. The Applicant was arrested on suspicion that he ts the one who caused the death of the deceased. 5 G, « Oo. 2, 1Q, -2 -oy.itamt has indicated that since his arrest on 14" December, 2021 he has not bean t2 -. sourt and that he is entitled to be presumed innocent and to be released oa bail. There ig no objection from the State to the granting of bail. The State has indicated that investigations are over and that there cannot be any interference with wilnesses. They are therefore of the view that the Applicant can be granted bail with conditions as the cqurl deems fit, Cinoe the State indicated that investigations are under way, they were asked as lo what the investigations revealed in relation to the Applicant considering that in their response nol much was stated apart from saying that the Applicant had a dispute with the deceased aver a piece of land which was occupied by the deceased. The State simply indicated that it is believed that the Applicant stabbed the deceased. The source of such a belief was however not disclosed, The State further indicated. that they are not ready fot trial as they have nol. yet received the docket and the Applicant is yet to be committed to High Court for trial. Every person detained on allegations of committing an offence is entitled under section 42(2)(e) of the Constitution to be erated bail unless the interest of justice demands olherwise. It does not matter what the nature of the offence is as iong as there is nothing in the interest of justice against the grant of bail. The Bail Cuidelines Act in Section 3 under Part [on Bail by (he Court Paragraph (a) to (d), lays down the principles which the court should take inte account when deciding whether or not to grant. Following are the principles which the Bail Guidelines Act lays down, (a} the likelihood that the accused, tf released on bail, will attempt to evade his or her trial (b) the likelihood that the accused. 1! he or she were released on bail, will attenipt to ‘nfluence or intimidate witnesses or to conceal or destroy evidence (c) the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were released on bail, will endanger the safety of the community or any paricular person of will commit an offence (d) in exceptional circumstances, the likelihood that the release of the accused will disturb the public order or undermine the public peace or securily The duty lies on the State to satisty the court why bail should not be granted in the rulerest of justice. Whilst the burden to show that the interests of justice require further detention Uics on the State, the Court may aiso on ils own, -ciwithsianding any representations (o the contrary by the Applicant or the State or both, make ifs independent finding upon weighing the persona! cireunstances of the Applicant and the interests of justice. According to Part I Section 9 of the Bail Guidelines Act, “Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution does vot oppose te evanting of bail, the court has the duty to weigh up the personal interests of the accHsed agains! the interests of justice.” The only available material for court's consideration on whether or not it is in the interest of justice to grant bail are the affidavit by Counsel for the Applicant and for the olate which unfortunately have not provided sufficient information in relation to the offence and the Applicant. 7 Ss that zs it may on the material available and in the light of the legal requirements af this scage, this court does not find sufficient basis as to why bail should not be granted in the wlerest of justice. Bail is therefore granted on the following conditions; ; a. Cash bond of K30, 000 b. Pwo sureties bonded in a non-cash sum of R100, 000 c, The Applicant and his sureties are to produce their national identities before the court d. Applicant is to report for bail at the nearest police station on Thursdays every fortnight ce, Applicant is to surrender travel documents to the court if any ; £ Applicant is not to leave Balaka without informing the Officer In-charge of Balaka Police Station. 13. The State indicated that investigations are over. The Court orders the State te take all preliminary steps for the trial of the Applicant including committal proceedings, filing and serving of disclosures within 90 days from today. lt is so ordered. Pronounced in Chambers this 6" Day of April, 2022. (s che { ea Wiolet Palikena~Chipac LUD ee =