High Court judge, Justice Happias Zhou yesterday dismissed a bail pending trial application filed by a suspected cocaine dealer, Pensari Sandisseque, on the basis that he was a flight risk given overwhelming evidence against him and the seriousness of the offence.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Sandisseque (36) was arrested at Belgravia shopping centre on September 20 this year and allegedly found in possession of 10 sachets of the illicit drug, which he was about to deliver to his customers.
He then appeared at the Harare Magistrates’ Court and was remanded in custody after the magistrate ruled he was not a suitable candidate for bail.
Through his lawyer, Advocate Garikai Sithole, Sandisseque approached the High Court, arguing the lower court had misdirected itself by denying him bail.
But, in his judgment, Justice Zhou said the magistrate’s decision could not be faulted.
“…even before this court, counsel for the appellant [Sithole] was invited to give an indication of the appellant’s possible defence to the allegations. Understandably, he failed. There is a spectacularly structured omission by the appellant to comment on the allegations,” he said.
“The appellant was found in possession of various sachets containing cocaine. The appellant makes no substantive comment on the above facts, which makes the case against him overwhelmingly strong.”
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Justice Zhou further said where allegations of a serious nature are made against an arrested person, it is insufficient for them, in bail applications, to merely refer to the presumption of innocence without giving a genuine comment on the substance of the allegations.
“The reason for requiring the appellant to do more than just assert the presumption of innocence is simple and easy to fathom. This is a court of law, not a game of chess; the proceedings before the court are, therefore, more serious than a technical knockout in a game of chess,” he said.
“The documents in the record show that the appellant only became a citizen in 2010. There is no suggestion that he owns any property of value in this country. He, therefore, has very little, if anything, to lose if he absconds and leaves this country.”
