Shock as cornered ZRP attempts to dodge responsibility over reckless use of metal spikes

On 14 December 2022, Kevin Kabaya and Peggy Tavagadza of Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), sued ZRP Commissioner-General Godwin
Matanga and Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage Minister Hon. Kazembe
Kazembe at Mutare High Court, claiming payment amounting to US$18 000
as damages for pain and suffering, permanent disfigurement, loss of
amenities, nervous shock and future medical expenses.

The summons were issued after some delinquent ZRP officers threw some
hand held metal spikes on an alleged speeding commuter omnibus in
Mutare on 4 May 2022, which led to a fatal road traffic accident, loss
of lives and injuries to some commuters.

Now in response to the summons, ZRP is attempting to dodge
responsibility by refusing to disclose the identity of the culprits,
who are police officers, who were manning the road check point and who
through their negligent conduct caused the traffic accident.

In an application for exception filed at Mutare High Court recently,
ZRP argued that the victims had in their summons not specified the
names of the primary perpetrators, who caused the road traffic
accident and hence the summons and the claim should be dismissed.

On 28 October 2022, Kabaya and Tavagadza wrote a letter to the
Provincial Legal Officer at ZRP Manicaland provincial headquarters
protesting that they had not been informed on whether any ZRP traffic
police officers had been charged with any offence and whether any
internal disciplinary procedures had been instituted arising from
their reckless conduct.

Kabaya and Tavagadza said their clients were extremely concerned that
they have neither been invited for interviews nor have any statements
been recorded from them regarding the fatal road traffic accident.

Their clients, the human rights lawyers said, wanted to be furnished
with information regarding at which stage the ZRP’s purported
investigations into the matter are at and the details of all traffic
police officers, who were at the scene of the accident.

They argued that in making the request they were exercising their
right to access to information as enshrined in section 62 of the
Constitution as read with section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act.