High Court grants bail to Zimbabwe opposition leader, journalist

4 September 2020 · Carmel Rickard

Two prisoners in one of Zimbabwe’s most notorious jails have been making international headlines as the courts repeatedly denied them bail. This week, however, as South Africa prepared to send a delegation to discuss the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, and as the number of international political and legal statements critical of the continued imprisonment continued to grow, the two men were released on the orders of the high court.

Read judgment

After more than a month in jail, two of Zimbabwe’s most high-profile prisoners were released on bail this week. Both had been refused bail by the same magistrate, and both were finally released on bail on the orders of two different judges on grounds that were remarkably similar.

Journalist Hopewell Chin’ono and Jacob Ngarivhume, leader of the opposition party Transform Zimbabwe, were both held for their alleged role in protest action called for 31 July, with the state claiming they were inciting people to revolt against Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his government.

Conditions in the Chikurubi maximum security prison where they were held were poor. Chin’ono was brought from jail – and appeared in court, wearing leg irons. On another occasion prison officials said they were unable to unlock the manacles on the wrists of Ngarivhume because of a malfunction. Both lost weight during their imprisonment and by the time Chin’ono was released it seemed certain that he was suffering from Covid-19.

'Disqualified'

The same magistrate who refused to grant the two men bail also ruled that Chin’ono’s legal counsel, human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa, was ‘disqualified’ from acting for him in the matter.

Both men were released by the high court on strict bail conditions. The written version of the judgment delivered in the case of Ngarivhume is not yet available, but it appears to be based on substantially the same issue as the central question in Chin’ono’s judgment.

Judge Tawanda Chitapi said that in his most recent refusal of bail, the magistrate had found that there were no ‘new facts’ not put before him previously.

'Passage of time'

The judge said that the magistrate had been wrong not to consider whether the ‘passage of time’ amounted to ‘changed circumstances’. The ‘passage of time’ had to be considered against the backdrop that the police had undertaken to complete their investigations within three weeks, but had not done so, nor given any explanation of their failure to complete the investigation.

Further, the magistrate had not found it relevant that 31 July, the date on which the ‘intended demonstration’ had been due to take place, had now passed.

The judge said that he disagreed that this was irrelevant. The judge appears to have read Chin’ono’s Twitter timeline, for he comments, ‘I did not find anything from the tweet attributed to [Chin’ono] to show that the demonstrations should continue beyond that date.’

'Discounted'

In what might be seen as a comment rather prejudging the criminal case that could yet be brought against the Chin’ono, the judge added, ‘There is no doubt that the tweets were threats to remove ZANU-PF from government’.

He said he agreed with the magistrate’s reasoning that Chin’ono had ‘discounted’ elections as a method of removing government from power, and it was thus ‘reasonable to infer the use of non-constitutional means to remove the government’.

However, there was ‘no reference in the tweets … to indicate that continuity of demonstrations beyond 31 July was advocated for. The 31st July 2020 was D Day so to speak.’

'Commendably'

Again, apparently unaware that he could be seen to be taking sides in a highly-fraught situation, the judge said, ‘The government commendably and rightfully addressed the citizenry through media … to go about their business as usual. I have said that the government acted commendably because it acted by dissuading the citizenry from engaging in public violence which is a punishable crime.’

However, the key date had now passed – something that warranted the court’s reconsidering its previous decision. ‘It was all about 31^st July and the fact that nothing happened and the day has passed is a new fact.’ He thus found that the magistrate misdirected himself in fact and in law by holding that the passing of 31 July did not amount to new circumstances that impacted on the question of bail.

The judge said that Chin’ono had ‘offered not to use the twitter to incite people or to use it at all’.

Foolhardy

‘It is a fact that [he] is on remand on reasonable suspicion that his twitter chats constituted an offence. It would be foolhardy for [him] to apply for bail, be granted bail and go out of prison to do the same thing for which [he] was arrested and incarcerated. He has in proposed bail conditions … undertaken not to engage in the use of the twitter account.

‘It appears to me that although [he] does not consider that he is guilty and has ever right to profess his innocence until found guilty, he must desist from further offending or engaging in similar conduct until the charges he presently faces are disposed of.’

The judge said he could not find there were compelling reasons for the pre-trial detention to continue, but would only order Chin’ono’s released ‘on conditions which are stringent enough to allay fears of [his] absconding or engaging in the same conduct for which he was arrested.’

Title deed

His bail conditions included payment of 10 000 Zimbabwe dollar, handing over his passport, surrendering the title deed to his property in Harare, continuing to live at his home for the duration of his criminal trial, reporting to the police twice a week. Moreover, he ‘shall not post on his Twitter handle, namely @daddyhope or create any new twitter account for the use to incite the holding of mass demonstrations for whatever purpose until the case against him is finalised.’

In their statement on the release of the two men, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights said that Judge Siyabona Musithu had disagreed with the magistrate who refused bail to Ngarivhume. The judge said the magistrate erred in refusing to release Ngarivhume as there had been ‘a change in circumstances’ now that 31 July had passed.

This is, essentially, the same grounds as in the decision by Judge Chitapi in the Chin’ono matter.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.