The High Court in Harare has upheld the dismissal of two police officers, Constables Robert Muganhu and David Hama, who had challenged their termination.
The constables' dismissal stemmed from their conviction in an internal disciplinary hearing for tampering with dagga exhibits, an incident that caused a related criminal case to collapse suspiciously.
Justice Musithu delivered the ruling, stating that the officers' actions "was reasonably likely to bring discredit to the police service." The judge dismissed the officers’ contention that their acquittal in a criminal court should have protected them from the disciplinary conviction.
"This Court noted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Officer is not harsh or induces a sense of shock," Justice Musithu remarked. "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."
Related Stories
The background of the case traces to January 31, 2023. That day, the two officers arrested Loveness Tsoora and Aaron Muza in Glendale, having found a red plastic container allegedly half-full of dagga. Though the drugs were taken to Howard Police Base, they later mysteriously "shrank to only two twists of dagga."
Despite being acquitted of criminal charges on appeal in 2023, the internal police tribunal found the pair guilty. The tribunal concluded they had disposed of most of the dagga and released Tsoora without following proper procedure, ruling that their actions undermined public trust in the force.
The officers had argued that the disciplinary tribunal erred because the High Court had already cleared them of criminal wrongdoing on the same facts. They also insisted that "no evidence was adduced beyond any reasonable doubt" that they had tampered with the drugs.
However, the High Court emphasized that acquittal in criminal proceedings did not bar internal disciplinary action. Justice Musithu clarified: “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.”
Lawyers for Muganhu and Hama also contested the severity of the custodial sentences, arguing they were "grossly irregular" and too harsh given mitigating factors. They suggested a reprimand or salary freeze would have been adequate punishment.
The court rejected this specific argument. “The points raised in mitigation were outweighed by the gravity and the seriousness of the offence committed by the Appellants,” Justice Musithu said, ultimately siding with the Commissioner-General of Police.
The officers were also ordered to pay the legal costs incurred during the appeal.
Leave Comments