News / National
Cops acquitted of murder charges due to procedural violations
2 hrs ago | Views
In a landmark ruling handed down at the Chinhoyi High Court, three Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) officers charged with the 2018 murder of a suspected poacher have been acquitted after the court ruled that their arrest and prosecution violated key legal provisions under the Protection of Wildlife (Indemnity) Act.
Justice Phildah Muzofa declared the trial of Constables Andrew Masanga, Brighton Makichi, and Trynos Rwanga a nullity, citing a lack of requisite authority from the Prosecutor-General (PG) - a legal prerequisite in cases involving indemnified law enforcement officers.
The officers had been on trial for the fatal shooting of Kurt Rahman in November 2018 during a confrontation in Darwendale, where Rahman and his associates were allegedly engaged in illegal reedbuck hunting.
According to court records, the officers were responding to a suspected case of cattle rustling, but upon hearing gunshots near a game park, shifted their focus to poaching. They intercepted the suspects who had already killed two reedbucks and were loading the carcasses into a vehicle when the confrontation occurred.
A shootout ensued, during which Rahman was fatally shot.
The officers argued self-defence, maintaining they were fired upon first. They also invoked statutory indemnity for law enforcement officers acting in the course of suppressing wildlife crimes.
Justice Muzofa agreed, ruling that their actions were clearly within the legal scope of suppressing unlawful hunting. She further emphasised that, under Section 4 of the Protection of Wildlife (Indemnity) Act, any arrest or prosecution of indemnified persons requires prior approval from the Prosecutor-General - which was not obtained in this case.
"The Prosecutor-General's authority was a sine qua non (essential condition) before prosecution," Justice Muzofa said in her judgment. "Without such authority, the arrest and prosecution are a nullity."
She added that the state's argument - that the officers were only investigating stock theft - was not supported by the facts.
"What determines the issue is whether at the time they shot the deceased, they were acting in furtherance of suppressing unlawful hunting. The undisputed evidence is that the deceased and his companions were engaged in unlawful hunting when the confrontation occurred."
The court criticised the state's failure to comply with statutory requirements, stating that any proceedings conducted in contravention of peremptory legislative provisions are void.
"It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no effect," the judge said, quoting legal precedent.
Despite the tragic nature of the incident, the court concluded that the entire prosecution was invalid due to the failure to secure PG approval, leading to the acquittal and discharge of the three officers.
The ruling underscores the legal protections afforded to law enforcement in wildlife crime suppression and highlights the necessity for strict procedural compliance in criminal prosecutions.
The state is yet to comment on whether it will appeal the ruling.
Justice Phildah Muzofa declared the trial of Constables Andrew Masanga, Brighton Makichi, and Trynos Rwanga a nullity, citing a lack of requisite authority from the Prosecutor-General (PG) - a legal prerequisite in cases involving indemnified law enforcement officers.
The officers had been on trial for the fatal shooting of Kurt Rahman in November 2018 during a confrontation in Darwendale, where Rahman and his associates were allegedly engaged in illegal reedbuck hunting.
According to court records, the officers were responding to a suspected case of cattle rustling, but upon hearing gunshots near a game park, shifted their focus to poaching. They intercepted the suspects who had already killed two reedbucks and were loading the carcasses into a vehicle when the confrontation occurred.
A shootout ensued, during which Rahman was fatally shot.
The officers argued self-defence, maintaining they were fired upon first. They also invoked statutory indemnity for law enforcement officers acting in the course of suppressing wildlife crimes.
Justice Muzofa agreed, ruling that their actions were clearly within the legal scope of suppressing unlawful hunting. She further emphasised that, under Section 4 of the Protection of Wildlife (Indemnity) Act, any arrest or prosecution of indemnified persons requires prior approval from the Prosecutor-General - which was not obtained in this case.
She added that the state's argument - that the officers were only investigating stock theft - was not supported by the facts.
"What determines the issue is whether at the time they shot the deceased, they were acting in furtherance of suppressing unlawful hunting. The undisputed evidence is that the deceased and his companions were engaged in unlawful hunting when the confrontation occurred."
The court criticised the state's failure to comply with statutory requirements, stating that any proceedings conducted in contravention of peremptory legislative provisions are void.
"It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no effect," the judge said, quoting legal precedent.
Despite the tragic nature of the incident, the court concluded that the entire prosecution was invalid due to the failure to secure PG approval, leading to the acquittal and discharge of the three officers.
The ruling underscores the legal protections afforded to law enforcement in wildlife crime suppression and highlights the necessity for strict procedural compliance in criminal prosecutions.
The state is yet to comment on whether it will appeal the ruling.
Source - The Herald
