S v Ncube and Ors (HC 1780 of 2002) [2002] ZWBHC 950 (31 July 2002)

{\rtf1\adeflang1025\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\adeff0\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f369\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f370\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f372\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f373\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f374\fbidi \froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f375\fbidi \froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f376\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f377\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;} {\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe2057\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;} {\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9113677} {\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.2627;}{\info{\author John Reid-Rowland}{\operator John Reid-Rowland}{\creatim\yr2005\mo2\dy16\hr11\min30}{\revtim\yr2005\mo2\dy16\hr11\min36}{\version2}{\edmins6}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords2059}{\nofchars11740}{\*\company } {\nofcharsws13772}{\vern16437}}\paperw11909\paperh16834\ltrsect \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind1\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot9113677 \fet0\ltrpar \sectd \ltrsect\pgnrestart\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\header \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8309\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe2057\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\kerning0\insrsid9113677 \par \par }}{\footer \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8309\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe2057\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\kerning0\insrsid9113677 \par \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnqc\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang2057\langfe2057\kerning28\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Judgment No. HB 95/2002 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Case No. HC 1780/2002 \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\insrsid9113677 FLETCHER DULINI NCUBE \par \par and \par \par SONY NICHOLAS MASARA \par \par and \par \par ARMY ZULU \par \par versus \par \par THE STATE \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE \par CHIWESHE J \par BULAWAYO 31 JULY and 1 AUGUST 2002 \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Adv. Anderson}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 for the applicants \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Mrs M Moya-Matshanga}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 for the respondent \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\ul\insrsid9113677 Judgment}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par \par \tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ab\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs24\insrsid9113677 CHIWESHE J:\tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 On 16 July 2002 applicants sought and obtained a \par \par provisional order calling upon the respondent to show cause why a final order should \par \par not be made as follows: \par \par \tab \'931.\tab The indictment in the above matter be struck off; \par \tab 2.\tab The applicants be removed from remand.\'94 \par \par \tab By way of interim relief the following order was granted: \par \par \tab \'93Pending determination of this matter the applicant is granted the following \par \par \tab relief: \par \par \tab (a)\tab the indictment of the applicants be postponed until this court has made \tab \tab a determination with regard the present matter. \par \tab (b)\tab respondent be and is hereby ordered to show cause why applicants \tab \tab \tab should not be removed from remand. \par \tab (c)\tab respondent be and is hereby ordered to file its answering papers on or \tab \tab before 12 noon of 17 July 2002 and applicants are granted leave to set \tab \tab the matter down within 48 hours thereafter.\'94 \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -2- \par \par \tab The background facts to this application are as follows. Applicant and \par \par co-accused persons face charges of murder. They were arrested in November 2001. \par \par They are all on bail pending trial in the High Court. They have been on remand since \par \par the time of their arrest. \par \par \tab According to the respondents (and this has not been challenged) their \par \par Bulawayo office received instructions from the Attorney-General\rquote s office in Harare \par \par that the applicants be indicted to the High Court in Harare. A letter was then written \par \par to the Clerk of Court (Criminal) requesting him to issue summons against the \par \par applicants in terms of section 110 (3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act \par \par [}{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677\charrsid9113677 Chapter 9:07}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 ]. The letter was copied to applicant\rquote s legal practitioners. In terms of \par \par the summons issued, the applicants were required to be in court 2, Tredgold \par \par Magistrates\rquote Court at 8.30a.m on 12 July 2002. The summons were not served as the \par \par police were unable to locate applicants. Warrants were then issued in terms of section \par \par 110 (3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. When the police sought to \par \par uplift the warrants they were informed that the magistrate had cancelled the warrants \par \par in chambers. It was then agreed between the respondent and applicants\rquote legal \par \par practitioners that the applicants be brought (by their legal practitioners) on 15 July \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 2002 for indictment. Applicants\rquote legal practitioners duly brought the applicants late \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par in the afternoon of that date. They served respondents with a chamber application \par \par seeking to bar respondent from indicting the applicants. A provisional order was \par \par granted on the basis of those papers on 16 July 2002. It was granted \'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 ex parte}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \'94. The \par \par reasons for that decision were given under the hand of my brother K}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \insrsid9113677 AMOCHA}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 J in \par \par judgment number HB-80-2002 and are stated as follows: \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -3-\tab \par \par \tab \'93The legal practitioners indicated that they had discussed the issue of making \tab an application in court to have the applicants removed from the remand with \tab the Attorney-General\rquote s Office but it (the Attorney-General\rquote s Office) did not \tab seem to want to have an application brought to court. They then ended up \tab deciding to make this application for a provisional order to compel the state to \tab come and argue the matter in court. They went on to say they had already \tab served the papers on the Attorney-General\rquote s Office. It was on that basis that \tab the provisional order was granted.\'94 \par \par \tab With respect}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 ,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 the correctness of that decision is doubtful moreso because it is \par \par not based on the merits of the case before the court but on the assumption that the \par \par Attorney-General\rquote s Office would not attend court unless the provisional order was \par \par granted. In my view the issues canvassed in the application are neither new nor \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 urgent. I do not consider therefore this matter to be an appropriate case in which an }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 ex \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 \par parte}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 judgment (even on a provisional basis) should have been granted. In terms of \par \par the merits of the matter no assistance is derived from that judgment regarding \par \par confirmation or otherwise of the provisional order. \par \par \tab In their heads of argument applicants contend that the state has not disclosed \par \par any admissible evidence to link them with the offence. \'93The sole basis on which it is \par \par alleged that they were implicated consists of alleged confessions by other persons \par \par sought to be indicted with them as co-accused in which they are alleged to have been \par \par implicated.\'94 \par \par \tab It is further argued that whilst the Attorney-General has the power to prosecute \par \par he is only entitled to exercise that power in accordance with sections 18 and 13 of the \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 C}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 onstitution (that is where admissible evidence is disclosed on which the court may \par \par objectively find the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the offence charged has \par \par been committed and that the accused should stand trial). \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -4- \par \par \tab According to applicants the indictment papers which are before this court do \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 not allege any evidence against the applicants save for the alleged confessions by \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par their co-accused after their arrest - these are not admissible against applicants. \par \par \tab On their part respondents argue that the application should be dismissed \par \par because it has no basis in law. They aver that the application is frivolous and \par \par vexatious and goes against the provisions of section 76 subsection 4(a) of the \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 C}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 onstitution as well as section 110 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. They \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par argue that the application seeks to usurp the powers of the Attorney-General. \par \par \tab Subsection 4(a) of section 76 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe reads: \par \par \tab \'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 (4)\tab The Attorney-G}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 eneral shall have power in any case, in which he \tab \tab \tab considers it desirable so to do - \par \tab \tab (a)\tab to institute and undertake criminal proceedings before any court \tab \tab \tab ... and to prosecute or defend an appeal from any determination \tab \tab \tab in such proceedings.\'94 \par \tab \par \tab And subsection (7) of that section provides: \par \par \tab \'93(7)\tab In the exercise of his powers under subsection (4) or (4)(a) the \tab \tab \tab Attorney-General shall not be subject to the direction or control of any \tab \tab person or authority.\'94 \par \par \tab The applicants rely on section 13 of the constitution of Zimbabwe for the \par \par proposition that the Attorney-General can only exercise the powers bestowed upon \par \par him subject to the limitations imposed by that section, and in this case, in particular \par \par subsection (2)(e) of that section. \par \par \tab Section 13(1) and (2) reads: \par \par \tab \'9313\tab Protection of right to personal liberty \par \tab \tab (1)\tab No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save as may \tab \tab \tab be authorise}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 d}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 by law in any of the cases specified in subsection \tab \tab \tab (2). \par \tab \tab (2)\tab The cases referred to in subsection (1) are where a person is \tab \tab \tab deprived of his personal liberty as may be authorised by law - \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -5- \par \par \tab \tab \tab (a)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (b)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (c)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (d)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (e)\tab upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or \tab \tab \tab \tab being about to commit a criminal offence. \par \tab \tab \tab (f)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (g)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (h)\tab ... \par \tab \tab \tab (i)\tab ...\'94 \par \par \tab Section 18(1) of the constitution of Zimbabwe upon which the applicants rely \par \par states: \par \par \tab \'9318\tab Provisions to secure protection of the law \par \tab \tab (1)\tab Sub}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 ject to the provisions of this C}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 onstitution}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 , every person is \tab \tab \tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 entitled to the protection of the law.\'94 \par \par \tab Whilst I agree with the respondents that the prerogative in deciding to \par \par prosecute any criminal matter rests with the Attorney-General (subject to the \par \par provisions relating to private prosecution) I would also agree with the applicants that \par \par in exercising his discretion in that regard the Attorney -General must do so judiciously \par \par and in accordance with the law. That power cannot be exercised outside the \par \par parameters of the law nor in an arbitrary manner. \par \tab \par \tab The main thrust of this application is the contention by applicants that there \par \par are no grounds giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they committed the offence in \par \par regard to which they have been in remand and in respect of which they stand to be \par \par indicted. \par \par In the case of }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Martin}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 A-G and Another}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 1993(1) ZLR 153 at 159 it was held thus: \par \par \tab \'93It is the entitlement of every individual to challenge the power and right of \tab the state to place him on remand. This he does upon a submission that \tab insufficient facts have been alleged to enable the court to objectively find the \tab existence of a reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02\tab \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -6- \par \par \tab commit a criminal offence, thereby justifying the deprivation of his personal \par \tab liberty under section 13(2)(e) of the constitution. He may adduce evidence, as \tab the applicant did, designed to demolish, clarify or weaken the facts alleged by \tab the state. The test to be applied is the same as that for arrest without warrant. \tab It does not require the firm resolution of conflicting evidence that guilt beyond \tab a reasonable doubt demands, nor even a preponderance of probability. \tab Certainty as to the truth is not involved, for otherwise it ceases to become \tab suspicion and becomes fact. Suspicion, by definition, is a state of conjecture \tab or surmise whereof proof is lacking.\'94 \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \tab In so holding }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677\charrsid9113677 GUBBAY}{ \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 CJ reiterated the point made in the \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 case of }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Attorney-General}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Blum}{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 ears and Another}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 1991(1) ZLR 118 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 (}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 S}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 )}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 at 123 A-B. \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 (See also }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Bull}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Attorney-General and Another}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 1986(1) ZLR 117 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 (}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 S}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 )}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 ). \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par \tab That the requirements and test for the existence of a reasonable suspicion that \par \par an accused person has committed or is about to commit an offence is as enunciated in \par \par the above cases admits of no doubt. Whilst there is ample authority in this regard \par \par concerning arrests without warrant, detention, remand and bail applications, I am \par \par unable to find, nor are the parties able to refer me to any authority in which an \par \par indictment was stopped on the grounds that no reasonable suspicion exists that an \par \par offence has been committed. \par \par \tab Applicants argue that the same considerations would nonetheless apply in \par \par relation to an indictment - in fact the same considerations apply throughout the \par \par pre-trial stage, including indictment. I tend to agree with }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Adv. Anderson\rquote s}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par \par submissions in that regard. It appears to me that the reason why there is a dearth of \par \par authorities at the indictment stage is probably due to ignorance on the part of \par \par unrepresented accused persons or where the accused person is legally represented, \par \par such issues would have been canvassed at an earlier stage, particularly at the remand \par \par stage. Assuming that an indictment can be challenged on the same basis and that the \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02\tab \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -7- \par \par test for the existence of a reasonable suspicion would be the same as laid down in the \par \par above cited cases, then this application cannot succeed. The state is not required to \par \par prove its case at this stage, not even on a balance of probabilities. All it needs do at \par \par this stage is demonstrate that on the facts alleged a reasonable suspicion arises that \par \par an offence has been committed. The test is the same as that for arrest without warrant. \par \par Suspicion has been described in the }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Martin}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 case }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 supra}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 as \'93}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 a state of conje}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 cture or \par \par surmise whereof proof is lacking\'94 The admissibility or otherwise of any facts or \par \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9113677 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 evidence that the }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 s}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 tate may seek to establish or adduce is not a factor for }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 c}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 onsideration \par }\pard \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 \par at this stage. Applicants seek a ruling on the basis that whatever evidence the state \par \par may have in the form of confessions by co-accused in which applicants are implicated \par \par would ordinarily be inadmissible as against applicants and therefore no reasonable \par \par suspicion could be held to exist that the applicants committed an offence. With \par \par respect}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 ,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 that would amount to an unjustifiable extension of the test to be applied. \par \par \tab In my view such issues stand for determination by the trial court. Suffice it to \par \par say that where an accused person implicates another in circumstances such as the \par \par present, that would be sufficient grounds for holding that a reasonable suspicion exists \par \par that an offence has been committed by such other. On that basis an arrest is \par \par justifiable. The accused person may be placed on remand on the same basis and \par \par indicted if needs be. \par \par \tab Reliance has been placed by applicants on the following cases: \par \tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Attorney-General}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Moyo}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 SC 33-02 \par \tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Spooner}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 The State}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 HB-51-01 \par \tab }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Moyo and Another}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 v }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 The State}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 HB 26-02 \par \par \par \par \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 95/02 \par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab -8-\tab \par \par \tab In these cases what was under consideration was the question of admission to \par \par bail. The admissibility or otherwise of co-accused\rquote s extra curial statements was \par \par considered for purposes of bail. I do not consider those cases relevant to the present \par \par applicant. My attention has also been drawn to the provisions of sections 178 and 179 \par \par of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. Again those provisions in my view have \par \par no direct bearing on the present applicant. \par \par \tab Applicants have been on remand for close to nine months now. At no stage \par \par during that period did they apply to be removed from remand even though they knew \par \par or ought to have known the facts upon which the state relied for placing them on \par \par remand. Those facts do not appear to have changed. It was only after the state \par \par indicated its intention to indict them that the present application was made (on an \par \par urgent basis). I can only conclude that the application is made solely for purposes of \par \par defeating the process of indictment. In any event I have already concluded that on \par \par the merits the application cannot succeed. \par \par \tab It is ordered that the provisional order be and is hereby discharged with costs. \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Webb, Low & Barry}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 applicants\rquote legal practitioners \par }{\rtlch\fcs1 \ai\af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs24\insrsid9113677 Attorney-General\rquote s Office}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs24 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs24\insrsid9113677 respondent\rquote s legal practitioners \par \par }}