Opinion / Columnist
Rtd Solomon Mujuru's inquest findings full report
29 Mar 2012 at 00:05hrs | Views
These are the findings in respect of the inquest held regarding the death of the late Retired General Solomon Tapfumaneyi Mujuru. The late General is alleged to have died between the night of the 15th of August and the morning of the 16th of August 2011.
Background
The factual background leading to the death of the Retired General is as follows: On the 15th of August 2011, the deceased left his Chisipite home in the afternoon alone, driving his white Double Cab Isuzu KB250 registration number ABT 0266, going to his farm called Ruzambo Farm in the Beatrice area. Ordinarily the deceased was supposed to be driven by his personal driver, Enoch Talapenzi, but on this day he went alone because he sent Talapenzi to Mr Savanhu's farm to collect a ridger, which was later taken to the farm.
On his way to the farm the decease passed through Beatrice Motel where he drank four (4) tots of Johnnie Walker Black Label Old Scotch Whisky mixed with soda water. At the motel the deceased was in company of various and regular patrons.
The deceased later left the motel alone, and arrived at this farm at around 2000 hours. Upon arrival at the farm he drove though the first security gate that was manned by a security guard called Clemence Runhare and he also drove through the second security gate that is manned by officers from Zimbabwe Republic Police, VIP Protection Unit. This second gate is the farmhouse gate that leads to Ruzambo farmhouse where the decease used to reside whilst at the farm. He drove past the gate, after briefly conversing with one of the police officers and went to the farmhouse.
It is pertinent to highlight that during that time from around 1701 hours there was no electricity around the Beatrice area, including at Ruzambo Farm, due to Zesa load-shedding. Electricity was only restored at 2054 hours.
After spending about five (5) minutes at the farmhouse, in the yard, the deceased drove out of the first gate guarded by the police officers and told them that he was going to get the farmhouse keys from one Rosemary Short, his maid, who resided at the farm compound which is situated about three (3) kilometre's from the farmhouse. After leaving the first gate, in order to access the farm compound, the deceased had to pass through another security gate, which is situated east of the farm and which on the day was guarded by a security guard called Samuel Lewis. He passed through this gate and went to Rosemary Short's dwellings at the farm compound.
The deceased met Rosemary Short and from whom he requested one (1) key that opens the kitchen door of the farmhouse. He was given the key by Rosemary, after having explained to her that he had left his in Harare and he then drove back to the farmhouse. On the way to the farmhouse, the decease passed though Ruzambo shop complex gate which was manned by one Ernest Nyamanja, the eastern gate which was manned by Samuel Lewis and the inner farmhouse gate which was manned by three Zimbabwe Republic Police police officers â€" Augustinos Chinyoka, Obert Mark and Lazarous Handikatari. The three are all constables. The deceased parked his motor vehicle in the farmhouse yard and retired to bed. He never came out of the farmhouse or yard again.
On the morning of 16 August 2011 at around 0140 hours, one of the police offices, Constable Chinyoka, who was on duty that time, noticed smoke coming out through the roof of the farmhouse. He went to the house to investigate and he discovered that the farmhouse was on fire. He immediately alerted his colleagues who were asleep and they together with other farm labourers, whom they had awaken and called, and battled to fight the fire in order to put it out and at the same time make efforts to locate the deceased.
The house was engulfed by fire which was so intense to the extent that at one time the heat in and around the house reached 530 degrees. They also informed Beatrice Police Station who in turn summoned the Harare Fire Bridge and Zesa to the farmhouse to attend to the fire.
The body of the deceased was only located after 0345 hours as it was still burning in the mini lounge of the farmhouse. The body was later conveyed to One (1) Commando Barracks mortuary where it was certified dead by Doctor Annamore Jamu and a post-mortem was carried out by Dr Gabriel Gonzalez, a forensic pathologist.
These are the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased, which will now be looked at in detail in an endeavour to comply with the provisions and requirements of the law, that is the Inquest Act, Chapter 7:07 together with the regulations.
THE LAW
This inquiry was done in terms of the provisions of the Inquest Act, of which Section 6(1) (b) provides as follows:
(1) Upon receiving the report mentioned in Section five, the Magistrate may
(a)…………………..
(b) If in his opinion the circumstances of the case require it, hold an inquest for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the death or refer the report to such other Magistrate as the Attorney-General may direct in order that such an inquest may be held".
Section twelve (12) of the same Act provides as follows:
"The Minister responsible for Justice, after consultation with the Chief Justice, may make rules for regulating the practice and procedure at or in connection with inquests".
These rules were indeed made by the Minister and are provided for in Statutory Instrument Number 129 of 1998 and are referred to as:
"Inquests Rules 1998"
Rule 6 (a) and (b) of these rules is pertinent and it provides as follows:
"The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining:
(a) Who the decease was?
(b) How, when and when the deceased came to his death?
Rule 7 goes further to provide limitations on what the court should do, as follows:
"The Magistrate shall not express any opinion or any matter other than those mentioned in rule 6". A lot of evidence was adduced during the hearing, some of which had nothing to do with the four issues stated in the rules. The court will not comment on such evidence, as it is not relevant and also because of the restrictions clearly stated in rule (7) of the rules.
The provisions of the law as stated above are the ones that will guide the court in the findings that the court will make. The purpose of the inquest was as provided for in section 6 (1) (b) of the Inquest Act, that is "ascertaining" the cause of death
In ascertaining the cause of death the court is required to find out as to who the deceased was, how, when where the decease came to his death" as provided for by rule 6 (a) and (b) of the inquest rules.
I will now deal with the issues as highlighted in the rules.
(A) WHO THE DECEASED WAS
Evidence was led in court that as people who were at he scene were battling to put the fire out, they were also looking for the deceased who they could not locate. The three Police Officers who were guarding the farm house and who first discovered the fire informed the court that as they were putting out the fire with others they were making efforts to try and locate the deceased. They believed that the deceased was in the house the last time they had seen him was when he passed the gate entering the yard into the farmhouse. When he was coming from collecting keys to the farmhouse from Rosemary Short, he had told them that he was going to retire for the night and never came out of the house or from the yard thereafter.
Rosemary Short, who is the maid of the deceased, and one of the last people to talk to the deceased, told the court that after she was told about the fire, her first question to the Police Officers was whether or not they had located the deceased. When she herself reached the farmhouse, her pre-occupation was to look for the decease. This was because the deceased had come to her to collect keys to the farmhouse and the deceased had told her that he was going to retire to bed at the farmhouse. The deceased had even intimated to her that he might even consider to sleep in his motor vehicle that night and to her this was neither strange nor surprising as he at one time or another slept in his vehicle.
When Rosemary arrived at the house, therefore, she was certain that if the Police and Security Guards had not seen the deceased leaving the premises for the second time after he had collected house keys from her then the deceased was in the house and it was critical that they looked for him. Even the widow, the Vice President, after being informed of the fire, spoke to, amongst other people, Albert Alufandika the gardener and Rosemary Short, over the cellphone and urged them to locate the deceased. Upon his arrival at the scene besides co-ordinating efforts to put out the fire, Inspector Dube, the Officer in Charge of Beatrice Police Station exerted efforts and directed people to peep through the windows so as to try and locate the deceased. All this occurred because as far as everyone was concerned at the time the fire started, the deceased was in the house.
After hours of battling with the fire when the fire had somehow died down but not completely, a body which was burning was discovered along the passage leading into the mini lounge from the main bedroom. This body was described by witnesses like Inspector Dube, Constable Handikatari and his colleagues, Alufandika the gardener, Rosemary Short, Investigating Officer Chief Superintendent Makedenga, experts like Police Forensic Director Mutandiro and Forensic Pathologist Dr Gabriel Gonzalez and others, as a charred body that had been extensively burnt beyond recognition. It was therefore necessary for proper identity to be done since the body had been burnt beyond recognition.
From the evidence that was adduced the court made the following observations in regards to the identity if the deceased. There was no direct evidence of the fact that the body which was discovered in the house is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru. The body was burnt beyond recognition, hence there was no one who could positively assert and identify the body as that of the Retired General. There was, however, the use of circumstantial and scientific evidence to identify the body as that of the Retired General.
(1) Circumstantial evidence
As already alluded elsewhere above, the deceased was seen by witness leaving his Chisipite residence alone. He arrived at Beatrice Motel alone and left the Motel alone. This was stated in court by the bar lady of Beatrice Motel, namely Portia Kamvura and patrons at the Motel like Blessing Madzimure, Tongai Chimuka and Douglas Nyakanga. When he left the Motel he was accompanied to his vehicle by Portia, Blessing and Douglas and they saw him driving off alone. The Retired General also arrived at the farm alone as was stated by Security Guard Samuel Lewis and the Police Officers, Constables Chinyoka, Mark and Handikatari. I am aware there is evidence of one witness Clemence Runhare who stated that he was in the company of someone when he arrived at the gate that he was manning. I will be commenting on Mr Runhare's observations in detail later.
The Retired General was also seen by Earnest Nyamanja another Security Guard and Rosemary Short alone. He conversed with Rosemary and he never intimated that he was in the company of someone. The perception that the court got from the evidence adduced is that the relationship between the deceased and Rosemary was such that if the deceased was in the company of someone, he would have told Rosemary.
Clemence Runhare is the only witness who stated that when he saw the Retired General he was in company of someone else whom he identified as his driver Talapenzi. The court has reservations in the observations made by Mr Runhare on this day. This is so because of the following reasons: Firstly he identified that person who was with the General as Mr Talapenzi, his personal driver, but it is common cause that Mr Talapenzi was at Chisipite at that relevant time. He was definitely not in the company of the Retired General as he himself confirmed that and he is the one who received a telephone call from Rosemary about the fire whilst he was at Chisipite. This clearly shows that Mr Runhare's observations in this respect is totally faulty. Mr Talapenzi is the one who also drove the Honourable Vice President to the farm on the morning of the 16th, after hearing the news of the fire. Secondly, it has been accepted from evidence that there was no electricity at the farm because of load shedding by Zesa and the wit ness himself admitted that when the General arrived it was dark, there was no source of lighting, the General did not light the interior of his motor vehicle and he was standing at a distance of about two metres from the General's motor vehicle, surely for him to have made some observations in the circumstances as described above, is in the court's view not possible. The cumulative effect of these factors, that it was at night, there was no electricity, the interior of the vehicle was not lit, there was a considerable distance from where the witness was standing and the driver's door let alone the passenger side of the vehicle and that the deceased spent very little time at the gate, are such that they effected the accuracy of the witness's observations. No wonder why he failed to see a suit that was hanged in the vehicle and he identified this so-called person as Talapenzi when evidence is clear that Talapenzi had been left at Chisipite by the deceased.
Thirdly, as already alluded to above evidence has been led that there was a suit that was hanged inside the deceased's motor vehicle. Constable Mark told the court that when the deceased arrived at the gate, he noticed that there was a jacket that was hanged inside the motor vehicle. Rosemary Short also told the court that besides the groceries, this jacket was one of the items she removed from the motor vehicle of the deceased on the morning of the 16th after the fire. In its analysis of the evidence it is, further, the court's finding that in view of the darkness, and the other factors that affected Mr Runhare's observations as described in (two) above, the witness might have possibly mistaken the hanged jacket which was in the vehicle to be a human being.
Fourthly all the witness who interacted with the deceased from the time he left his Chisipite house, to the time he went to Beatrice Motel and later ended up at the farm, insisted that the deceased was travelling alone. Even the other Security Guards whom he saw at the eastern gate (Samuel Lewis) and the other one who guards the gate leading to the farm shop (Earnest Nyamanja) both also saw the deceased alone. It therefore boggles the mind how Mr Runhare and him alone observed that the deceased was in the company of the someone. That obviously make the court conclude that it is either the witness is not telling the truth, or his memory is failing him or his observations were faulty for he reasons illustrated in three above.
For the four reasons I had given above I am not convinced at all that the observations made by Mr Runhare on this day were correct. His observations and perceptions of events on that day are faulty, hence the court will not accept them. Even if, however, the court was to accept that indeed Mr Runhare saw the deceased in the company of someone, that person did not enter the farmhouse. There is a distance of about three hundred metres (300) between Mr Runhare's outer gate and the farmhouse gate guarded by the Police.
When the deceased reached the farmhouse gate guarded by the Police Officers, he stopped his motor vehicle, he lit the interior of his motor vehicle and, according to Constable Mark, he even conversed with the Police Officers asking them if everything was well at the farm. The Police Officers did not see anyone in the motor vehicle, the deceased was alone. What they saw was a jacket, which was hanged in the motor vehicle. These officers had clearer and better observations and perception of the events than Mr Runhare. This is because the deceased lit the interior of his vehicle hence they were able to see clearly what and who was in the vehicle, the deceased spent more time in their sight between 10 and 30 seconds) unlike with Mr Runhare as they conversed with him and they were three of them who all agreed that the deceased was alone. Constable Mark who was closer to the deceased was standing a distance about 30 cm from the deceased's door, a distance which is much closer as compared to Runhare who made his observations at a distance of one to two metres.
The court is therefore convinced that at the relevant time when the deceased entered the farmhouse yard for the first time arriving from the Motel and for the second time coming from Rosemary's house, he was alone. Even if one is to argue that Mr Runhare saw him with someone, that is neither here nor there because when he entered the farmhouse he was alone, he was not in the company of anyone. He would not have even told Rosemary (the maid) about the possibility of him sleeping in his motor vehicle on that day if he was in the company of another person.
One would note that the court has dedicated more time on this aspect because it is important and it has a bearing on the identity of the burnt body that was found in the house. This is because if there were two people who entered the farmhouse that day, then it will obviously be difficult it not impossible to conclude that the body that was burnt beyond recognition is that of the deceased.
The farmhouse is guarded 24 hours a day by trained Police Officers. There were three Police Officers who would be on the twelve (12) hours duty. At the relevant time Constable Chinyoka was on duty whilst Constables Mark and Handikatari were asleep as they were not on duty. Unfortunate insinuations were made against the Police Officers that they were asleep on duty, which is not true. The two who were asleep were not on duty at all. Constable Chinyoka is the one who was on duty, no wonder why he is the one who discovered the fire at 0140 hours and later alerted his colleagues. Constable Chinyoka stated in his evidence that the perimeter fence was well secured and no one entered the farmhouse or farmhouse yard besides the deceased.
In light of the above observations the court can safely make a finding that the only person who entered the farmhouse at the relevant time and who was in the house at the time of the fire was the Retired General, the deceased. This explains why when the fire was discovered everyone involved made frantic efforts to locate the Retired General. It is because they knew that he had entered the farmhouse on returning from Rosemary Short's house and he had entered alone.
From the evidence adduced the court noted that this is the basis upon which the Police concluded that the charred body which was burnt beyond recognition and which was found in the house belonged to the Retired General Solomon Mujuru.
The use of circumstantial evidence is a way of reasoning which draws probable conclusions from facts that are known. It is a process of inferential reasoning which is based on facts that would have been proved in court and such inference must be reasonable and in criminal law, the requirements go further to state that it must be the only reasonable inference.
What is before the court is that the Retired General had been seen travelling alone when he left Chisipite. He arrived alone at Beatrice Motel. He left Beatrice Motel alone heading for the farm. The last people to see him when he retired to bed were the Police Officers who guard his premises and who confirmed that he was alone when he retired to bed. No one entered his premises, after he retired to bed. He is the only person who was inside the farmhouse at the time that the fire started. All these facts point in a particular direction and all these facts are in harmony with the hypothesis being analysed that the body that had been burnt beyond recognition is that of Retired General Solomon Mujuru. This is an inference which is based on facts adduced in court and one which is reasonable in the circumstances.
The conclusion therefore made by the Police that the body belonged to that of the Retired General was reasonable, as this is the only conclusion that one could arrive at in the circumstances.
(ii) Scientific Evidence
The Police also confirmed the identify of the deceased through forensic evidence by doing a DNA analysis. DNA evidence is at times referred to as an example of circumstantial evidence, but there are others who argue that it is a form of direct scientific evidence. This, however, is not relevant for the purposes of this ruling.
Evidence was adduced in court from the Police in the form of Investigating Officer Makedenge and Police Forensic Director Mutandiro that a sample of flesh was removed from the body of the deceased for purposes of extracting a DNA sample. When this sample of flesh was removed from the deceased's body one of the deceased's relatives, his nephew called Mudiwa Mundawarara, was present. A comparison blood sample was obtained from Kumbirai Rungano Mujuru, the female child of the deceased. Again Mr Mundawarara was present when this was done.
i) The samples were sent for DNA analysis in the Biology Section at the Forensic Science Laboratory of South Africa Police Services in Pretoria. The DNA analysis was done by a Warrant Officer in the South African Police Service called Dumisani Porcia Chauke. She concluded after the analysis, that the probability of the person discovered burnt beyond recognition of being the father of Kumbirai Rungano Mujuru is 99.90 percent. This, according to her, is a strong statistical calculation of the evidence. This therefore confirms that the body discovered in the house is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru. Refusing to accept this evidence would lead to the improbable coincidence that the person who was burnt in the house is Kumbirai Mujuru's father who was not General Mujuru.
The court, however, noted that the DNA analysis was done well after the burial of the deceased. This in the court's view was inappropriate on the part of the Police. I do appreciate that there was strong circumstantial evidence, which I have already analysed above, which pointed to the identity of the body as that of the Retired General Mujuru. If the Police felt that they needed even stronger evidence regarding the identity of the body in the form of DNA analysis, then it made no sense for them to authorise burial before that issue was cleared. The Director of Forensic, Mr Mutandiro, admitted in court that it was an oversight on their part and fortunately the DNA results were consistent with the factual conclusions that they had already made.
In conclusion therefore having analysed the circumstantial evidence and the forensic evidence as stated above, the court can safely conclude in answering the first question of this inquest as to "who the deceased was," that the charred body that was discovered in the farm house, is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru.
(B) WHEN THE DECEASED CAME TO HIS DEATH
The next issue that requires to be ascertained by this court is as to when the deceased came to his death.
The evidence before the court is that the now deceased arrived at the farm on the night of 15 August 2011, around 2000 hours. According to the Police Officers who were manning the gate, namely Constables Mark and Handikatari, after the deceased had entered the farmhouse yard, he stayed there for five minutes and later came out. When he arrived at the gate he told them that he was going to Rosemary Short's house to collect keys to the farmhouse. He later came back after about fifteen (15) minutes, the gate was opened by Constable Chinyoka whom he told that he was now going to retire to bed. According to Rosemary Short, the Retired General Mujuru came to her house around 2000 hours and requested her to give him keys to the farmhouse because he had forgotten his in Harare. It is also around this time that the Security Guards who are namely Samuel Lewis (guarding the eastern gate that leads to the farm compound) and Ernest Nyamanja (guarding the gate that leads into the farm shop), also saw Retired General Mujuru.
The sequence of events in terms of time on the movement of deceased are as follows, the deceased first entered the farmhouse around 2000 hours, he went out after five (5) minutes (around 2005 hours) going to collect the farm house keys from Rosemary Short. He came back and re-entered the farmhouse after fifteen (15) minutes whereupon he informed Constable Chinyoka who opened the gate for him that he was now retiring for the night. This was the last time the deceased was seen.
The last people to see the now deceased, therefore are the Police Officers who were manning the farmhouse gate. They last saw him on the night of 15 August 2011 at around 2020 hours.
The fire was first discovered by Constable Chinyoka on morning of the 16th August 2011 at around 0140 hours.
It is not known at that time whether the Retired General Mujuru had died or not, because no such evidence was brought before the court. It is also not known from the time the fire was first discovered around 0140 hours up to the time the charred body was discovered around 0345 hours, whether he was dead or alive because, again, no such evidence was brought before the court.
What is, however, clear to the court from the analysis of evidence before it, is that as at around 2020 hours on 15 August 2011, the Retired General Mujuru was alive and as at 03454 hours on the morning of 16 August 2011 he was dead.
The court can therefore, safely conclude that the Retired General Mujuru died between the hours of 2020 hours on the night of 15 August 2011 and 0345 hours on the morning of 16 August 2011.
(C) WHERE THE DECEASED CAME TO HIS DEATH
The law also requires the court to make a finding as to where the deceased met his death. This obviously refers to the place and or position where the deceased met his death.
This issue has already been exhaustively discussed elsewhere in this ruling. The deceased entered the farmhouse at around 2020 hours on the night of 15 August 2011. His burnt and charred body was later discovered in the farmhouse. The position where the body was discovered in the house was clearly marked in exhibit three (3), that is the sketch plan, in the passage of a room called the mini lounge. This mini lounge is the room next to the main bedroom, where the deceased is believed to have gone to sleep.
The answer therefore to the third issue the court is required to ascertain on, is that the deceased met his death inside the farmhouse, on the passage of the mini-lounge at Ruzambo Farm in the Beatrice area.
(D) HOW THE DECEASED MET HIS DEATH
The fact that I have alluded to elsewhere in the ruling is that after the Retired General Mujuru entered the farm house purportedly to retire for the night as stated by Constable Chinyoka, he never came out alive.
Constable Chinyoka is the Police Officer who was on duty. During the course of the night he would make regular patrols in an around the farmhouse yard. According to his evidence, the purpose of these patrols was to protect the person of the deceased and his property and further to ensure that there were no intruders.
After the deceased had entered the yard to retire for the night as stated above, the next event that occurred is that Constable Chinyoka when carrying out one of his regular patrols observed that the farmhouse was on fire. It is after that fire that the deceased's charred body was discovered, burnt beyond recognition.
In order to inquire and find out how the deceased died and how the fire started the court analysed the following forms of evidence,
I) Evidence of witnesses who interacted and met the deceased just before he went to bed.
II) Investigations by the Police
III) Investigations by the Fire Brigade
IV) Investigations by the Police Forensic Unit
V) Investigations by the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authrity (ZESA) official
VI) Findings of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem
VII) Findings of the South African Forensic Scientists
The court will now analyse the nature of evidence of the group of witnesses stated above in an effort to ascertain what caused the death of the deceased.
i) The last witnesses to meet the deceased
The last witnesses to meet the deceased were as follows, Clemence Runhare (Security Guard), the three Constables Chinyoka, Mark and Handikatari, Samuel Lewis, Rosemary Short (the maid) and Ernest Nyamanja (the Shop Security Guard).
Mr Runhare first met the deceased the first time as he entered the farm arriving from Beatrice Motel. The court has already dealt at length with his evidence when he met the deceased at that time. What is pertinent is what transpired after the deceased had retired for the night.
He told the court that at around 0220 to 0225 hours in the morning as he was at his point of guard he heard some noise which sounded like explosion of bullets. It is at that same time that he also met another guard who came to where he was and told him that had also heard some sounds. The court noted the confusion the witnesses had over. At one time he changed and stated that the time he heard bullet explosions was around 1100 pm and the other time 1200 midnight. Every time he was asked a question he would come out with a different time. He was generally not an impressive witness. He is also the same witness and the only one for that matter who claimed to have seen the General in the company of someone when he arrived at the firm.
What is pertinent about this witness' evidence in relation to the cause of death are his assertions that he heard some noise which sounded like explosion of bullets. It is in the context that his evidence will be considered together of Samuel Lewis, the other security guard, who also told the court that he heard some sounds of something bursting and that made him to run to the point of guard where Runhare was situated. They heard the same sound together and they ran towards the farmhouse where they discovered that the house was on fire.
It is important at this juncture to point out that at no point in Runhare's evidence did he state that he heard sounds of gun shots but instead he said he heard sounds of explosion of bullets. It is further important to clarify that at no point during his evidence did Samuel Lewis state that he heard sounds of gun shots but instead he indicated that he heard sounds of something bursting. Even when it was put to him that in his statement he had written that he heard sounds of gun shots he refused to confirm that by keeping quite. The court is in fact more comfortable in accepting what he said in court because he is not the one who wrote his statement as he can neither write nor read.
Upon his arrival at the house, Runhare told the court he discovered that the sound which initially he had assumed to be of bullets explosion was in fact caused by asbestos sheets that were cracking and exploding. The basis of him to make such a conclusion was because that same sound he had heard whilst still at his point of guard at the gate, is the same sound that was being produced by the exploding asbestos sheets.
Samuel Lewis also told the court that when he arrived at the farm house in the company of Runhare he established that the bursting sound he had heard whilst at this point of guard was in fact caused by asbestos sheets that were cracking and bursting.
From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that at no time did anyone of them hear sounds of gun shots because none of them ever said than in their evidence. The notion therefore that Runhare told the court that he heard sounds of gun shots is not true as it is at variance with the evidence contained in the record. What Runhare said he heard are bullet explosions and not gun shot. The sound of a bullet explosion is different to the sound of a gunshot, as was well explained by the Police ballistic expert, Assistant Inspector Mtizwa.
This distinction is critical because in house as illustrated by Assistant Inspector Mtizwa, they recovered about six (6) kg of ammunition that had exploded. This ammunition had been caused to explode by the heat from the fire. Assistant Inspector Mtizwa was quite categoric that their tests had shown that none of the ammunition had been fired from a gun but all had exploded because of the heat. The evidence of Assistant.
Background
The factual background leading to the death of the Retired General is as follows: On the 15th of August 2011, the deceased left his Chisipite home in the afternoon alone, driving his white Double Cab Isuzu KB250 registration number ABT 0266, going to his farm called Ruzambo Farm in the Beatrice area. Ordinarily the deceased was supposed to be driven by his personal driver, Enoch Talapenzi, but on this day he went alone because he sent Talapenzi to Mr Savanhu's farm to collect a ridger, which was later taken to the farm.
On his way to the farm the decease passed through Beatrice Motel where he drank four (4) tots of Johnnie Walker Black Label Old Scotch Whisky mixed with soda water. At the motel the deceased was in company of various and regular patrons.
The deceased later left the motel alone, and arrived at this farm at around 2000 hours. Upon arrival at the farm he drove though the first security gate that was manned by a security guard called Clemence Runhare and he also drove through the second security gate that is manned by officers from Zimbabwe Republic Police, VIP Protection Unit. This second gate is the farmhouse gate that leads to Ruzambo farmhouse where the decease used to reside whilst at the farm. He drove past the gate, after briefly conversing with one of the police officers and went to the farmhouse.
It is pertinent to highlight that during that time from around 1701 hours there was no electricity around the Beatrice area, including at Ruzambo Farm, due to Zesa load-shedding. Electricity was only restored at 2054 hours.
After spending about five (5) minutes at the farmhouse, in the yard, the deceased drove out of the first gate guarded by the police officers and told them that he was going to get the farmhouse keys from one Rosemary Short, his maid, who resided at the farm compound which is situated about three (3) kilometre's from the farmhouse. After leaving the first gate, in order to access the farm compound, the deceased had to pass through another security gate, which is situated east of the farm and which on the day was guarded by a security guard called Samuel Lewis. He passed through this gate and went to Rosemary Short's dwellings at the farm compound.
The deceased met Rosemary Short and from whom he requested one (1) key that opens the kitchen door of the farmhouse. He was given the key by Rosemary, after having explained to her that he had left his in Harare and he then drove back to the farmhouse. On the way to the farmhouse, the decease passed though Ruzambo shop complex gate which was manned by one Ernest Nyamanja, the eastern gate which was manned by Samuel Lewis and the inner farmhouse gate which was manned by three Zimbabwe Republic Police police officers â€" Augustinos Chinyoka, Obert Mark and Lazarous Handikatari. The three are all constables. The deceased parked his motor vehicle in the farmhouse yard and retired to bed. He never came out of the farmhouse or yard again.
On the morning of 16 August 2011 at around 0140 hours, one of the police offices, Constable Chinyoka, who was on duty that time, noticed smoke coming out through the roof of the farmhouse. He went to the house to investigate and he discovered that the farmhouse was on fire. He immediately alerted his colleagues who were asleep and they together with other farm labourers, whom they had awaken and called, and battled to fight the fire in order to put it out and at the same time make efforts to locate the deceased.
The house was engulfed by fire which was so intense to the extent that at one time the heat in and around the house reached 530 degrees. They also informed Beatrice Police Station who in turn summoned the Harare Fire Bridge and Zesa to the farmhouse to attend to the fire.
The body of the deceased was only located after 0345 hours as it was still burning in the mini lounge of the farmhouse. The body was later conveyed to One (1) Commando Barracks mortuary where it was certified dead by Doctor Annamore Jamu and a post-mortem was carried out by Dr Gabriel Gonzalez, a forensic pathologist.
These are the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased, which will now be looked at in detail in an endeavour to comply with the provisions and requirements of the law, that is the Inquest Act, Chapter 7:07 together with the regulations.
THE LAW
This inquiry was done in terms of the provisions of the Inquest Act, of which Section 6(1) (b) provides as follows:
(1) Upon receiving the report mentioned in Section five, the Magistrate may
(a)…………………..
(b) If in his opinion the circumstances of the case require it, hold an inquest for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the death or refer the report to such other Magistrate as the Attorney-General may direct in order that such an inquest may be held".
Section twelve (12) of the same Act provides as follows:
"The Minister responsible for Justice, after consultation with the Chief Justice, may make rules for regulating the practice and procedure at or in connection with inquests".
These rules were indeed made by the Minister and are provided for in Statutory Instrument Number 129 of 1998 and are referred to as:
"Inquests Rules 1998"
Rule 6 (a) and (b) of these rules is pertinent and it provides as follows:
"The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining:
(a) Who the decease was?
(b) How, when and when the deceased came to his death?
Rule 7 goes further to provide limitations on what the court should do, as follows:
"The Magistrate shall not express any opinion or any matter other than those mentioned in rule 6". A lot of evidence was adduced during the hearing, some of which had nothing to do with the four issues stated in the rules. The court will not comment on such evidence, as it is not relevant and also because of the restrictions clearly stated in rule (7) of the rules.
The provisions of the law as stated above are the ones that will guide the court in the findings that the court will make. The purpose of the inquest was as provided for in section 6 (1) (b) of the Inquest Act, that is "ascertaining" the cause of death
In ascertaining the cause of death the court is required to find out as to who the deceased was, how, when where the decease came to his death" as provided for by rule 6 (a) and (b) of the inquest rules.
I will now deal with the issues as highlighted in the rules.
(A) WHO THE DECEASED WAS
Evidence was led in court that as people who were at he scene were battling to put the fire out, they were also looking for the deceased who they could not locate. The three Police Officers who were guarding the farm house and who first discovered the fire informed the court that as they were putting out the fire with others they were making efforts to try and locate the deceased. They believed that the deceased was in the house the last time they had seen him was when he passed the gate entering the yard into the farmhouse. When he was coming from collecting keys to the farmhouse from Rosemary Short, he had told them that he was going to retire for the night and never came out of the house or from the yard thereafter.
Rosemary Short, who is the maid of the deceased, and one of the last people to talk to the deceased, told the court that after she was told about the fire, her first question to the Police Officers was whether or not they had located the deceased. When she herself reached the farmhouse, her pre-occupation was to look for the decease. This was because the deceased had come to her to collect keys to the farmhouse and the deceased had told her that he was going to retire to bed at the farmhouse. The deceased had even intimated to her that he might even consider to sleep in his motor vehicle that night and to her this was neither strange nor surprising as he at one time or another slept in his vehicle.
When Rosemary arrived at the house, therefore, she was certain that if the Police and Security Guards had not seen the deceased leaving the premises for the second time after he had collected house keys from her then the deceased was in the house and it was critical that they looked for him. Even the widow, the Vice President, after being informed of the fire, spoke to, amongst other people, Albert Alufandika the gardener and Rosemary Short, over the cellphone and urged them to locate the deceased. Upon his arrival at the scene besides co-ordinating efforts to put out the fire, Inspector Dube, the Officer in Charge of Beatrice Police Station exerted efforts and directed people to peep through the windows so as to try and locate the deceased. All this occurred because as far as everyone was concerned at the time the fire started, the deceased was in the house.
After hours of battling with the fire when the fire had somehow died down but not completely, a body which was burning was discovered along the passage leading into the mini lounge from the main bedroom. This body was described by witnesses like Inspector Dube, Constable Handikatari and his colleagues, Alufandika the gardener, Rosemary Short, Investigating Officer Chief Superintendent Makedenga, experts like Police Forensic Director Mutandiro and Forensic Pathologist Dr Gabriel Gonzalez and others, as a charred body that had been extensively burnt beyond recognition. It was therefore necessary for proper identity to be done since the body had been burnt beyond recognition.
From the evidence that was adduced the court made the following observations in regards to the identity if the deceased. There was no direct evidence of the fact that the body which was discovered in the house is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru. The body was burnt beyond recognition, hence there was no one who could positively assert and identify the body as that of the Retired General. There was, however, the use of circumstantial and scientific evidence to identify the body as that of the Retired General.
(1) Circumstantial evidence
As already alluded elsewhere above, the deceased was seen by witness leaving his Chisipite residence alone. He arrived at Beatrice Motel alone and left the Motel alone. This was stated in court by the bar lady of Beatrice Motel, namely Portia Kamvura and patrons at the Motel like Blessing Madzimure, Tongai Chimuka and Douglas Nyakanga. When he left the Motel he was accompanied to his vehicle by Portia, Blessing and Douglas and they saw him driving off alone. The Retired General also arrived at the farm alone as was stated by Security Guard Samuel Lewis and the Police Officers, Constables Chinyoka, Mark and Handikatari. I am aware there is evidence of one witness Clemence Runhare who stated that he was in the company of someone when he arrived at the gate that he was manning. I will be commenting on Mr Runhare's observations in detail later.
The Retired General was also seen by Earnest Nyamanja another Security Guard and Rosemary Short alone. He conversed with Rosemary and he never intimated that he was in the company of someone. The perception that the court got from the evidence adduced is that the relationship between the deceased and Rosemary was such that if the deceased was in the company of someone, he would have told Rosemary.
Clemence Runhare is the only witness who stated that when he saw the Retired General he was in company of someone else whom he identified as his driver Talapenzi. The court has reservations in the observations made by Mr Runhare on this day. This is so because of the following reasons: Firstly he identified that person who was with the General as Mr Talapenzi, his personal driver, but it is common cause that Mr Talapenzi was at Chisipite at that relevant time. He was definitely not in the company of the Retired General as he himself confirmed that and he is the one who received a telephone call from Rosemary about the fire whilst he was at Chisipite. This clearly shows that Mr Runhare's observations in this respect is totally faulty. Mr Talapenzi is the one who also drove the Honourable Vice President to the farm on the morning of the 16th, after hearing the news of the fire. Secondly, it has been accepted from evidence that there was no electricity at the farm because of load shedding by Zesa and the wit ness himself admitted that when the General arrived it was dark, there was no source of lighting, the General did not light the interior of his motor vehicle and he was standing at a distance of about two metres from the General's motor vehicle, surely for him to have made some observations in the circumstances as described above, is in the court's view not possible. The cumulative effect of these factors, that it was at night, there was no electricity, the interior of the vehicle was not lit, there was a considerable distance from where the witness was standing and the driver's door let alone the passenger side of the vehicle and that the deceased spent very little time at the gate, are such that they effected the accuracy of the witness's observations. No wonder why he failed to see a suit that was hanged in the vehicle and he identified this so-called person as Talapenzi when evidence is clear that Talapenzi had been left at Chisipite by the deceased.
Thirdly, as already alluded to above evidence has been led that there was a suit that was hanged inside the deceased's motor vehicle. Constable Mark told the court that when the deceased arrived at the gate, he noticed that there was a jacket that was hanged inside the motor vehicle. Rosemary Short also told the court that besides the groceries, this jacket was one of the items she removed from the motor vehicle of the deceased on the morning of the 16th after the fire. In its analysis of the evidence it is, further, the court's finding that in view of the darkness, and the other factors that affected Mr Runhare's observations as described in (two) above, the witness might have possibly mistaken the hanged jacket which was in the vehicle to be a human being.
Fourthly all the witness who interacted with the deceased from the time he left his Chisipite house, to the time he went to Beatrice Motel and later ended up at the farm, insisted that the deceased was travelling alone. Even the other Security Guards whom he saw at the eastern gate (Samuel Lewis) and the other one who guards the gate leading to the farm shop (Earnest Nyamanja) both also saw the deceased alone. It therefore boggles the mind how Mr Runhare and him alone observed that the deceased was in the company of the someone. That obviously make the court conclude that it is either the witness is not telling the truth, or his memory is failing him or his observations were faulty for he reasons illustrated in three above.
For the four reasons I had given above I am not convinced at all that the observations made by Mr Runhare on this day were correct. His observations and perceptions of events on that day are faulty, hence the court will not accept them. Even if, however, the court was to accept that indeed Mr Runhare saw the deceased in the company of someone, that person did not enter the farmhouse. There is a distance of about three hundred metres (300) between Mr Runhare's outer gate and the farmhouse gate guarded by the Police.
When the deceased reached the farmhouse gate guarded by the Police Officers, he stopped his motor vehicle, he lit the interior of his motor vehicle and, according to Constable Mark, he even conversed with the Police Officers asking them if everything was well at the farm. The Police Officers did not see anyone in the motor vehicle, the deceased was alone. What they saw was a jacket, which was hanged in the motor vehicle. These officers had clearer and better observations and perception of the events than Mr Runhare. This is because the deceased lit the interior of his vehicle hence they were able to see clearly what and who was in the vehicle, the deceased spent more time in their sight between 10 and 30 seconds) unlike with Mr Runhare as they conversed with him and they were three of them who all agreed that the deceased was alone. Constable Mark who was closer to the deceased was standing a distance about 30 cm from the deceased's door, a distance which is much closer as compared to Runhare who made his observations at a distance of one to two metres.
The court is therefore convinced that at the relevant time when the deceased entered the farmhouse yard for the first time arriving from the Motel and for the second time coming from Rosemary's house, he was alone. Even if one is to argue that Mr Runhare saw him with someone, that is neither here nor there because when he entered the farmhouse he was alone, he was not in the company of anyone. He would not have even told Rosemary (the maid) about the possibility of him sleeping in his motor vehicle on that day if he was in the company of another person.
One would note that the court has dedicated more time on this aspect because it is important and it has a bearing on the identity of the burnt body that was found in the house. This is because if there were two people who entered the farmhouse that day, then it will obviously be difficult it not impossible to conclude that the body that was burnt beyond recognition is that of the deceased.
The farmhouse is guarded 24 hours a day by trained Police Officers. There were three Police Officers who would be on the twelve (12) hours duty. At the relevant time Constable Chinyoka was on duty whilst Constables Mark and Handikatari were asleep as they were not on duty. Unfortunate insinuations were made against the Police Officers that they were asleep on duty, which is not true. The two who were asleep were not on duty at all. Constable Chinyoka is the one who was on duty, no wonder why he is the one who discovered the fire at 0140 hours and later alerted his colleagues. Constable Chinyoka stated in his evidence that the perimeter fence was well secured and no one entered the farmhouse or farmhouse yard besides the deceased.
In light of the above observations the court can safely make a finding that the only person who entered the farmhouse at the relevant time and who was in the house at the time of the fire was the Retired General, the deceased. This explains why when the fire was discovered everyone involved made frantic efforts to locate the Retired General. It is because they knew that he had entered the farmhouse on returning from Rosemary Short's house and he had entered alone.
From the evidence adduced the court noted that this is the basis upon which the Police concluded that the charred body which was burnt beyond recognition and which was found in the house belonged to the Retired General Solomon Mujuru.
The use of circumstantial evidence is a way of reasoning which draws probable conclusions from facts that are known. It is a process of inferential reasoning which is based on facts that would have been proved in court and such inference must be reasonable and in criminal law, the requirements go further to state that it must be the only reasonable inference.
What is before the court is that the Retired General had been seen travelling alone when he left Chisipite. He arrived alone at Beatrice Motel. He left Beatrice Motel alone heading for the farm. The last people to see him when he retired to bed were the Police Officers who guard his premises and who confirmed that he was alone when he retired to bed. No one entered his premises, after he retired to bed. He is the only person who was inside the farmhouse at the time that the fire started. All these facts point in a particular direction and all these facts are in harmony with the hypothesis being analysed that the body that had been burnt beyond recognition is that of Retired General Solomon Mujuru. This is an inference which is based on facts adduced in court and one which is reasonable in the circumstances.
The conclusion therefore made by the Police that the body belonged to that of the Retired General was reasonable, as this is the only conclusion that one could arrive at in the circumstances.
(ii) Scientific Evidence
The Police also confirmed the identify of the deceased through forensic evidence by doing a DNA analysis. DNA evidence is at times referred to as an example of circumstantial evidence, but there are others who argue that it is a form of direct scientific evidence. This, however, is not relevant for the purposes of this ruling.
Evidence was adduced in court from the Police in the form of Investigating Officer Makedenge and Police Forensic Director Mutandiro that a sample of flesh was removed from the body of the deceased for purposes of extracting a DNA sample. When this sample of flesh was removed from the deceased's body one of the deceased's relatives, his nephew called Mudiwa Mundawarara, was present. A comparison blood sample was obtained from Kumbirai Rungano Mujuru, the female child of the deceased. Again Mr Mundawarara was present when this was done.
i) The samples were sent for DNA analysis in the Biology Section at the Forensic Science Laboratory of South Africa Police Services in Pretoria. The DNA analysis was done by a Warrant Officer in the South African Police Service called Dumisani Porcia Chauke. She concluded after the analysis, that the probability of the person discovered burnt beyond recognition of being the father of Kumbirai Rungano Mujuru is 99.90 percent. This, according to her, is a strong statistical calculation of the evidence. This therefore confirms that the body discovered in the house is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru. Refusing to accept this evidence would lead to the improbable coincidence that the person who was burnt in the house is Kumbirai Mujuru's father who was not General Mujuru.
The court, however, noted that the DNA analysis was done well after the burial of the deceased. This in the court's view was inappropriate on the part of the Police. I do appreciate that there was strong circumstantial evidence, which I have already analysed above, which pointed to the identity of the body as that of the Retired General Mujuru. If the Police felt that they needed even stronger evidence regarding the identity of the body in the form of DNA analysis, then it made no sense for them to authorise burial before that issue was cleared. The Director of Forensic, Mr Mutandiro, admitted in court that it was an oversight on their part and fortunately the DNA results were consistent with the factual conclusions that they had already made.
In conclusion therefore having analysed the circumstantial evidence and the forensic evidence as stated above, the court can safely conclude in answering the first question of this inquest as to "who the deceased was," that the charred body that was discovered in the farm house, is that of the Retired General Solomon Mujuru.
(B) WHEN THE DECEASED CAME TO HIS DEATH
The next issue that requires to be ascertained by this court is as to when the deceased came to his death.
The evidence before the court is that the now deceased arrived at the farm on the night of 15 August 2011, around 2000 hours. According to the Police Officers who were manning the gate, namely Constables Mark and Handikatari, after the deceased had entered the farmhouse yard, he stayed there for five minutes and later came out. When he arrived at the gate he told them that he was going to Rosemary Short's house to collect keys to the farmhouse. He later came back after about fifteen (15) minutes, the gate was opened by Constable Chinyoka whom he told that he was now going to retire to bed. According to Rosemary Short, the Retired General Mujuru came to her house around 2000 hours and requested her to give him keys to the farmhouse because he had forgotten his in Harare. It is also around this time that the Security Guards who are namely Samuel Lewis (guarding the eastern gate that leads to the farm compound) and Ernest Nyamanja (guarding the gate that leads into the farm shop), also saw Retired General Mujuru.
The sequence of events in terms of time on the movement of deceased are as follows, the deceased first entered the farmhouse around 2000 hours, he went out after five (5) minutes (around 2005 hours) going to collect the farm house keys from Rosemary Short. He came back and re-entered the farmhouse after fifteen (15) minutes whereupon he informed Constable Chinyoka who opened the gate for him that he was now retiring for the night. This was the last time the deceased was seen.
The last people to see the now deceased, therefore are the Police Officers who were manning the farmhouse gate. They last saw him on the night of 15 August 2011 at around 2020 hours.
The fire was first discovered by Constable Chinyoka on morning of the 16th August 2011 at around 0140 hours.
It is not known at that time whether the Retired General Mujuru had died or not, because no such evidence was brought before the court. It is also not known from the time the fire was first discovered around 0140 hours up to the time the charred body was discovered around 0345 hours, whether he was dead or alive because, again, no such evidence was brought before the court.
What is, however, clear to the court from the analysis of evidence before it, is that as at around 2020 hours on 15 August 2011, the Retired General Mujuru was alive and as at 03454 hours on the morning of 16 August 2011 he was dead.
The court can therefore, safely conclude that the Retired General Mujuru died between the hours of 2020 hours on the night of 15 August 2011 and 0345 hours on the morning of 16 August 2011.
(C) WHERE THE DECEASED CAME TO HIS DEATH
The law also requires the court to make a finding as to where the deceased met his death. This obviously refers to the place and or position where the deceased met his death.
This issue has already been exhaustively discussed elsewhere in this ruling. The deceased entered the farmhouse at around 2020 hours on the night of 15 August 2011. His burnt and charred body was later discovered in the farmhouse. The position where the body was discovered in the house was clearly marked in exhibit three (3), that is the sketch plan, in the passage of a room called the mini lounge. This mini lounge is the room next to the main bedroom, where the deceased is believed to have gone to sleep.
The answer therefore to the third issue the court is required to ascertain on, is that the deceased met his death inside the farmhouse, on the passage of the mini-lounge at Ruzambo Farm in the Beatrice area.
(D) HOW THE DECEASED MET HIS DEATH
The fact that I have alluded to elsewhere in the ruling is that after the Retired General Mujuru entered the farm house purportedly to retire for the night as stated by Constable Chinyoka, he never came out alive.
Constable Chinyoka is the Police Officer who was on duty. During the course of the night he would make regular patrols in an around the farmhouse yard. According to his evidence, the purpose of these patrols was to protect the person of the deceased and his property and further to ensure that there were no intruders.
After the deceased had entered the yard to retire for the night as stated above, the next event that occurred is that Constable Chinyoka when carrying out one of his regular patrols observed that the farmhouse was on fire. It is after that fire that the deceased's charred body was discovered, burnt beyond recognition.
In order to inquire and find out how the deceased died and how the fire started the court analysed the following forms of evidence,
I) Evidence of witnesses who interacted and met the deceased just before he went to bed.
II) Investigations by the Police
III) Investigations by the Fire Brigade
IV) Investigations by the Police Forensic Unit
V) Investigations by the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authrity (ZESA) official
VI) Findings of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem
VII) Findings of the South African Forensic Scientists
The court will now analyse the nature of evidence of the group of witnesses stated above in an effort to ascertain what caused the death of the deceased.
i) The last witnesses to meet the deceased
The last witnesses to meet the deceased were as follows, Clemence Runhare (Security Guard), the three Constables Chinyoka, Mark and Handikatari, Samuel Lewis, Rosemary Short (the maid) and Ernest Nyamanja (the Shop Security Guard).
Mr Runhare first met the deceased the first time as he entered the farm arriving from Beatrice Motel. The court has already dealt at length with his evidence when he met the deceased at that time. What is pertinent is what transpired after the deceased had retired for the night.
He told the court that at around 0220 to 0225 hours in the morning as he was at his point of guard he heard some noise which sounded like explosion of bullets. It is at that same time that he also met another guard who came to where he was and told him that had also heard some sounds. The court noted the confusion the witnesses had over. At one time he changed and stated that the time he heard bullet explosions was around 1100 pm and the other time 1200 midnight. Every time he was asked a question he would come out with a different time. He was generally not an impressive witness. He is also the same witness and the only one for that matter who claimed to have seen the General in the company of someone when he arrived at the firm.
What is pertinent about this witness' evidence in relation to the cause of death are his assertions that he heard some noise which sounded like explosion of bullets. It is in the context that his evidence will be considered together of Samuel Lewis, the other security guard, who also told the court that he heard some sounds of something bursting and that made him to run to the point of guard where Runhare was situated. They heard the same sound together and they ran towards the farmhouse where they discovered that the house was on fire.
It is important at this juncture to point out that at no point in Runhare's evidence did he state that he heard sounds of gun shots but instead he said he heard sounds of explosion of bullets. It is further important to clarify that at no point during his evidence did Samuel Lewis state that he heard sounds of gun shots but instead he indicated that he heard sounds of something bursting. Even when it was put to him that in his statement he had written that he heard sounds of gun shots he refused to confirm that by keeping quite. The court is in fact more comfortable in accepting what he said in court because he is not the one who wrote his statement as he can neither write nor read.
Upon his arrival at the house, Runhare told the court he discovered that the sound which initially he had assumed to be of bullets explosion was in fact caused by asbestos sheets that were cracking and exploding. The basis of him to make such a conclusion was because that same sound he had heard whilst still at his point of guard at the gate, is the same sound that was being produced by the exploding asbestos sheets.
Samuel Lewis also told the court that when he arrived at the farm house in the company of Runhare he established that the bursting sound he had heard whilst at this point of guard was in fact caused by asbestos sheets that were cracking and bursting.
From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that at no time did anyone of them hear sounds of gun shots because none of them ever said than in their evidence. The notion therefore that Runhare told the court that he heard sounds of gun shots is not true as it is at variance with the evidence contained in the record. What Runhare said he heard are bullet explosions and not gun shot. The sound of a bullet explosion is different to the sound of a gunshot, as was well explained by the Police ballistic expert, Assistant Inspector Mtizwa.
This distinction is critical because in house as illustrated by Assistant Inspector Mtizwa, they recovered about six (6) kg of ammunition that had exploded. This ammunition had been caused to explode by the heat from the fire. Assistant Inspector Mtizwa was quite categoric that their tests had shown that none of the ammunition had been fired from a gun but all had exploded because of the heat. The evidence of Assistant.
Source - zimpapers
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
