The fate of 78 Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) activists, including party leader Jameson Timba, hangs in the balance as they enter their second month in detention. The High Court, on Monday, reserved its judgment on their bail appeal, leaving the group’s supporters and the wider opposition in a state of anxious anticipation.
The activists, arrested on June 16th on charges of unlawful gathering and disorderly conduct, have been held in custody for a month, their pleas for release met with a firm denial by the lower court.
The High Court hearing, presided over by Justice Munamato Mutevedzi, saw a heated exchange between legal representatives for the accused and the state. Jeremiah Bamu, representing the appellants, argued that the lower court had erred in failing to consider the individual circumstances of each accused.
“The court a quo should have given reasons for distinguishing accused 1 from other appellants. Accused 1 (Timba) is not liable for the offence only because people had gathered at his house. That did not make him part of the gathering and the court a quo ought to have distinguished his circumstances from that of the other accused,” Bamu submitted.
Bamu further highlighted the case of Lucia Antonio, appellant 58, who was merely a tenant at Timba’s residence. He argued that the arrests were a “dragnet” operation, with many individuals detained for an offence they did not commit.
“It is clear that the appellants weren’t arrested at the same place but two different places and the evidence of the IO was that the police did not ascertain the purpose of the gathering. There is no strong case in particular to the charge they are facing. According to the IO, not everyone who was part of the gathering threw stones at the police. The individual role of each appellant ought to have been ascertained,” Bamu stated.
He also drew attention to the plight of the 40th appellant, a disabled man with an artificial leg, whose circumstances were not considered by the lower court.
“If they had been considered, the court a quo would have been more lenient. The 4th appellant, Tambudzai sustained a broken leg, there was no justification for denying her bail given her circumstances,” Bamu added.
Webster Jiti, another lawyer for the appellants, echoed Bamu’s sentiments, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the state’s claim that the accused posed a flight risk.
“It is a misdirection to deny an appellant bail when there are no indications that they will skip bail. Police officers will testify and these witnesses are not known to the appellants hence they pose no threats to the investigations. None has shown he/she has the capacity to interfere with investigations or witnesses,” Jiti argued.
He further challenged the lower court’s conclusion that the appellants were likely to re-offend, stating that the state had failed to provide concrete evidence to support this claim.
“Court a quo made an error at law of concluding that the appellants were likely to re-offend. That they will team up with accomplices…we were not told who are these accomplices. The law is very clear, where the State alleges that there is an accomplice, the accomplice should be known to the accused persons,” Jiti said.
Jiti also pointed out the absence of any evidence from the police officers who were allegedly pelted with stones, including their names or medical affidavits. He argued that the evidence presented before the court actually contradicted the state’s narrative, suggesting that the appellants were the victims of police brutality.
“Evidence before the court is rather contrary. The appellants were brutalized to the extent that some were hospitalised,” Jiti stated.
He concluded by arguing that all the accused should have been granted bail, citing the case of Sean Timba, who was granted bail despite facing serious charges.
The state, represented by Charles Muchemwa, countered the appellants’ arguments, maintaining that the lower court’s decision was justified.
“The evidence before the court shows that this offence was committed in aggravating circumstances and there is a likelihood of a conviction. This might induce the appellants to abscond. It is therefore my humble submission that the appeal be dismissed,” Muchemwa argued.
He dismissed the appellant’s disability as an excuse, stating that he had travelled from Chitungwiza to participate in the alleged offence.
“On accused 40, His disability cannot be an excuse. He travelled all the way from Chitungwiza to commit this offence although he is disabled. He should not have been part of this group if his condition was to be considered in the first place,” Muchemwa said.
He concluded by reiterating the state’s position that the appellants were properly arrested and denied bail.
Justice Mutevedzi, after hearing both sides, reserved his judgment, promising a ruling no later than Thursday. The delay in the ruling has heightened the tension and anxiety among the CCC supporters and the wider opposition, who are eagerly awaiting the court’s decision.
The case has sparked widespread concern about the state of political freedom in Zimbabwe, with many observers viewing the arrests as an attempt to stifle dissent and intimidate the opposition.
