Cops dismissed over missing dagga exhibit

The High Court has upheld the dismissal of two police officers, Constables Robert Muganhu and David Hama, who were found guilty of tampering with dagga exhibits in a case that later collapsed under suspicious circumstances.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Siyabona Musithu, the court dismissed the officers' appeal, finding that their actions were "reasonably likely to bring discredit to the police service." The judge rejected the pair's argument that their earlier acquittal in a criminal court should have shielded them from internal disciplinary proceedings.

"This Court noted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Officer is not harsh or induces a sense of shock," said Justice Musithu. "The sentence passed was appropriate, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by the appellants. A non-custodial sentence does not suffice under these circumstances."

The case dates back to January 31, 2023, when Muganhu and Hama arrested Loveness Tsoora and Aaron Muza in Glendale after allegedly finding a red plastic container half-filled with dagga. The drugs were taken to Howard Police Base, but when checked later, the exhibit had mysteriously diminished to only "two twists of dagga."

An internal police tribunal subsequently found the officers guilty of disposing of most of the dagga and releasing one of the suspects, Tsoora, without following proper procedure. Although the pair were acquitted of the criminal charges on appeal later in 2023, the disciplinary panel ruled that their conduct had undermined public confidence in the Zimbabwe Republic Police.

In their appeal, the two officers argued that their disciplinary conviction was invalid since they had already been acquitted by the High Court on the same allegations. They also claimed that no evidence beyond reasonable doubt proved they had tampered with the drugs.

However, Justice Musithu dismissed this reasoning, noting that criminal acquittal does not prevent administrative or disciplinary action.

"The present disciplinary proceedings were concerned with the manner in which the applicants had conducted themselves, which it was reckoned was likely to bring discredit to the police service," he said.

The officers' lawyers further argued that the disciplinary sentence — which included dismissal — was "grossly irregular" and too severe, suggesting a reprimand or salary reduction would have been more appropriate.

Justice Musithu disagreed, upholding the Commissioner-General of Police's position that the seriousness of the misconduct warranted dismissal.

"The points raised in mitigation were outweighed by the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by the appellants," the judge ruled.

The court concluded that both officers' actions were incompatible with the standards expected of members of the police service and ordered them to pay legal costs.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's firm stance against corruption and misconduct within the security services, reinforcing the principle that internal disciplinary accountability can proceed independently of criminal verdicts.