Simbi Bazilio v The State

1
                                                                                   HH 186/21
                                                                                   B 1379/20


SIMBI BAZILIO
versus
THE STATE


HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHITAPI J
HARARE, 15 & 21 April 2021


Bail Pending trial


Applicant in person
R. Nyamombe, for the respondent


       CHITAPI J: The applicant is charged with the offence of murder as defined in s 47 of
the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23]. The allegations on which he
was placed on remand by the magistrate were that, on 12 December, 2018, the applicant
entered the deceased’s room at 3705 Glen Norah A where they both resided. The deceased
was asleep naked. The accused was armed with two knives and a pair of scissors. The
applicant stabbed the deceased several times upon his body until the now deceased passed on.
Thereafter the applicant cut off the deceased’s testicles using a scissors and dumped the
testicles in a water drainage. The applicant, carried the deceased’s lifeless body and dumped
it an open area near a school within the environs of the murder scene. The body of the
deceased was discovered by members of the public on the following morning. Police attended
the scene and investigated the matter leading to the arrest of the applicant. The applicant who
had injured his left hand during the attack on the deceased, confessed to having caused the
death of the deceased. The applicant led police on indications. Through the applicant’s
indications police recovered the deceased’s testicles and the two kitchen knives and scissors
which the applicant had used to stab the deceased and to dismember the deceased’s testicles
from the deceased’s body.

       The magistrate before whom the applicant appeared for initial remand does not appear
to have been alive to the bizarre nature of the murder. It was on the facts a motiveless murder
which ought to have concerned the magistrate to consider whether or not the applicant was
not suffering under some problem of the mind, given the applicant’s age of 19 years and the
                                                                                               2
                                                                                       HH 186/21
                                                                                       B 1379/20


unexplained conduct of killing the deceased without motive. The applicant appeared before
the court on initial remand on 15 December 2018 and has been on remand since then.

       The applicant applied for bail in this court first before NDEWERE J and then before
FOROMA J. Both of the applicant’s attempts to be granted bail failed and the applications
were dismissed. The applicant then filed another follow up application for bail. I dealt with
the application on 24 November 2020. After considering the allegations against the applicant
as set out in the form 242 remand form, I noted that the facts revealed a gruesome murder in
which there was no motive alleged for its commission,. I also considered it a strange
occurrence that the applicant would dismember the deceased’s private parts and just throw
them to waste. It became necessary to engage in a discourse with the applicant to establish
whether in the opinion of the court, he could be said to be mentally balanced.

       When I asked the accused what he knew of the case, he started to address different
issues altogether in an incoherent manner. I enquired of the prosecutor as to what her thought
were given the exchanges which I had with the applicant. The prosecutor submitted that she
thought that the applicant was of unsound mind. My own view was that the applicant may
well be mentally disordered within the definition of mental disorder as set out in the
provisions of the Mental Health Act, [Chapter 15:06]. This Act defines the disordered mental
state of a person as”

       “mentally disordered or intellectually handicapped; in relation to any person, means that the
       person is suffering from mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind,
       psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of the mind.”
       The incoherence of thought and speech exhibited by the applicant therefore fell within
the description of a mentally disordered or handicapped person. Faced with the above
observations, I made an order that the applicant should be examined by 2 medical doctors in
terms of the Mental Health Act, and for their reports be submitted to the court before the
application could be disposed of the finality. I postponed the hearing of the application sine
die awaiting the examination to be carried out.
       The applicant was duly examined by one doctor and a psychiatric nurse on 26 and 22
February 2021. The nurse Bridget Bande noted the following facts;
       “Denies to hallucinations and delusions, however has episodes of agitation (see) incoherent
       speech and suicidal ideations. Oriented to place, date and time. Both judgment and memory
       are good.”
       The doctor Moses Kadondo comment as follows-
                                                                                             3
                                                                                     HH 186/21
                                                                                     B 1379/20


       “Has episodes of incoherent speech, agitation suicidal and hallucinations.”
       From the observations made upon the mental examination of the applicant as noted
above, it is clear that the applicant is mentally disordered or intellectually handicapped within
the definition given in the Act as quoted (supra).
       The applicant is a person who requires to be treated. I enquired from the applicant for
details of his next of kin whom he said was his mother. Several efforts made by the
prosecution to contact the mother were in vain. I required the presence of the next of kin so as
to ascertain whether there was a possibility of the applicant to be treated whilst under the care
of his family as had been suggested by the applicant. The applicant then submitted that he
had been in contact with his sister who pretended to be the applicant’s mother and that when
he asked to be assisted the sister was not forthcoming. What is clear from all this is that there
is presently no one within the applicants’ family who is concerned with the applicant’s
predicament to want to intercede. The applicant is all alone. He however must be treated for
his own good as he has suicidal tendencies and for the public safety because one cannot tell
what the applicant can do when he hallucinates and becomes agitated. The allegations of
murder which he faces are very serious. The applicant cannot be released at this moment
because of likely dangers which he poses to society. The application for bail is therefore
dismissed.
               It is necessary to make an order for the further management of the applicant. I
do not consider it appropriate to make the order myself. The applicant is not yet on trial
before me but is still appearing in the remand court. It is only appropriate that the remand
court magistrate makes enquiry into the applicant’s mental state in terms of the Mental Health
Act and make a determination thereof taking account of the medical reports referred to herein
and any other relevant facts.


A copy of this judgement shall be filed in Record HREP CRB 15244/18


Applicant in person
National Prosecuting Authority, respondent’s legal practitioner