Online Reporter
Lovemore Kadzura
Post Reporter
TWO police officers, who solicited and received a bribe from a suspect’s mother to secure his release and were jailed, have lost their bid to seek a review of the internal disciplinary process at the High Court.
Talent Lazarus Tausen, a sergeant, and Edwin Dewa, a constable, were convicted through internal proceedings instituted by the Zimbabwe Republic Police.
They were sentenced to 14 days in detention at Chikurubi Maximum Prison for accepting a US$370 bribe from Alice Chikumba.
Chikumba is the mother of Sydney Muchongoyo, who was arrested for stealing a bag from an Inter Africa bus.
Despite receiving the bribe, the two officers did not secure Sydney’s release. This prompted his mother to report them to their superiors.
They were charged and convicted of the offence through internal processes.
They appealed the outcome and their superiors dismissed the appeal. The officers approached the Mutare High Court seeking a stay of execution pending determination of the review of the sentence. The duo argued that once the sentence has been executed, they will suffer irreparable harm as the detention will not be undone, even if their application for a review succeeded.
They also argued that the witnesses relied upon by the ZRP had vested interests.
The ZRP, represented by the Attorney General’s Civil Division, argued that there was no valid application for review before the court as the application was filed out of time.
The AG argued that the purported grounds of review were actually grounds of appeal and that the application for a review lacked merit and was meant to buy time and should be dismissed.
High Court Judge, Justice Sijabuliso Siziba, found merit in the ZRP’s argument and ruled that the application for review by the applicants was defective and out of time under High Court rules.
“The present application for stay of execution by the applicants has no legs to stand as it is anchored upon a fatally defective application that can never ever succeed.
“The application for review, which lies at the foundation of this urgent application, is invalid because it is out of time and no condonation was sought.
“The grounds of review advanced by the applicants mainly attacked the trial proceedings that were terminated on January 13, 2026.
“This is being done after the expiry of more than 20 weeks of the termination of such proceedings.
“Rules mandate that a review be filed within eight weeks of termination of proceedings which are the subject of the review,” ruled Justice Siziba.
Mathew Masinge