The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and the Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage Kazembe Kazembe have been ordered to jointly pay US$5 000 in damages to a man who was shot during an anti-illegal mining operation in Matopo, after a court found that police had failed to establish that he was part of a violent crowd.
Vaitlengam Ngwenya was shot by Assistant Inspector Dean Sharara at Makanka tuckshops in Nkomazana Mine Syndicate on March 6, 2025, during a police operation targeting illegal mining activities.
Ngwenya sustained injuries to his right eye, head and left arm when Sharara fired two shots from a Mossberg firearm towards a crowd.
He was represented by Prisca Dube of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR).
On this topic
Ngwenya approached the Kezi Magistrates’ Court seeking compensation, arguing that he was an innocent civilian caught up in the police operation and had been shot without justification.
In its judgment, the court found that although there had been a disturbance involving members of the public and the police, there was insufficient evidence to show that Ngwenya had participated in the violence or posed a threat to officers.
“The shooting was therefore wrongful and unjustified,” the court ruled.
Ngwenya told the court that he had been eating with his cousin, Ayanda Moyo, at a tuckshop when people suddenly started running.
Unaware of what had happened, he joined them but later decided to return to retrieve his cap.
He said that as he approached the area, someone shone a light in his face before he heard a short sound and felt something strike him. He turned around and fell.
Ngwenya maintained that he was unarmed and had not taken part in any violence when he was shot. Members of the public later assisted him and took him for medical treatment.
Moyo corroborated his account, telling the court that they had been eating together before people started running. Although he did not witness the shooting, he heard a sound and later saw that Ngwenya had been injured.
However, the police disputed Ngwenya’s account, arguing that the shooting occurred during an operation against illegal mining and machete-wielding gangs, when officers were attacked by a violent crowd.
Sharara, who was leading a six-member police team deployed under Operation Chikorokoza Ngachipere, told the court that he had received information about violence at Makanka and proceeded to the area with his team.
He said the crowd initially fled when the officers arrived but later regrouped and attacked them with stones, half-bricks, burning logs and other missiles.
Sharara said he instructed Constable Richard Ndabezinhle Bhebhe, who was armed with an AK rifle, to fire two warning shots after the crowd refused to disperse. Bhebhe was allegedly struck on the arm.
He further told the court that Constable Costa Mhazo, who was carrying a Mossberg firearm, was struck in the face before Sharara took the weapon and fired two shots towards the advancing crowd.
The crowd dispersed after the shots, and police later found Ngwenya bleeding at the scene.
Sharara maintained that Ngwenya had been part of the violent crowd and said he had informed him that he was under arrest for public violence before arranging for him to be taken to hospital.
However, the court identified significant gaps in the police account, particularly the failure by officers to identify Ngwenya as one of the alleged attackers.
During cross-examination, Sharara admitted that he could not identify Ngwenya among the crowd when he fired because it was dark. Mhazo and Bhebhe also failed to identify him as one of the people who had allegedly attacked the police.
The magistrate said finding Ngwenya injured after the shooting did not prove that he had participated in the violence.
“The proposition that the Plaintiff must have been part of the violent crowd merely because he was subsequently found injured is a conclusion rather than evidence,” the judgment reads.
The court acknowledged that police officers were entitled to protect themselves and maintain public order if they came under attack. However, it said this did not give them unrestricted authority to use firearms without establishing the nature of the threat.
“The power to maintain law and order therefore does not constitute an unrestricted licence to use force,” the magistrate said.
The court also questioned the absence of independent evidence supporting the police version of events.
No ballistic report, spent cartridges, photographs of the scene or medical records relating to the alleged injuries sustained by the officers were produced.
The investigating officer and independent members of the public who allegedly witnessed the attack were also not called to testify.
The magistrate noted that the absence of medical records did not necessarily mean the officers had not been injured. However, it weakened the defence’s argument that they faced an imminent threat of death or serious injury when Sharara fired.
The court further found that police had failed to demonstrate that firing a Mossberg towards a crowd was reasonably necessary and proportionate, particularly when Ngwenya had not been identified as an aggressor.
It noted that other crowd-control measures had been available, although police had argued that using tear gas would have been dangerous because of the mining shafts in the area.
“The fact that tear gas might have presented risks does not by itself establish that firing a firearm towards a crowd was the only reasonable option,” the judgment reads.
The magistrate also questioned the circumstances surrounding Ngwenya’s arrest.
Although Sharara claimed to have arrested him at the scene, evidence showed that Ngwenya was taken to hospital in a civilian vehicle without a police escort and was later discharged.
He was arrested again on March 26, 2025, after being charged with public violence. The criminal proceedings were subsequently terminated without a conviction.
The court said the inconsistencies surrounding the alleged arrest at the scene further weakened the police account that Ngwenya had been identified as an offender during the operation.
Ngwenya told the court that the shooting had left him with continuing pain, particularly when exposed to sunlight and during adverse weather conditions. He also said his injuries had affected his ability to work.
He sustained injuries to his right eye, including a limbal corneal laceration and traumatic cataract, which required hospitalisation and surgery.
In assessing the damages, the court awarded him US$2 000 for medical and related expenses, US$2 000 for pain, suffering, nervous shock and trauma, and US$1 000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities of life.
However, the magistrate declined to award additional damages for loss of earnings, saying Ngwenya had not provided sufficient evidence of his actual income, how long he had been unable to work or the extent of any future loss of earning capacity.
The court found that Sharara had been acting in the course of his official duties during the police operation. The other defendants were therefore liable for his actions under the principle of vicarious liability.
“The evidence establishes that the 1st Defendant was acting under police command and in the course and scope of his employment,” the judgment reads.
The other defendants were the Officer-in-Charge of Matopo Police Station, the Commissioner-General of Police and the Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage.
They were ordered to pay the US$5,000 jointly and severally. This means Ngwenya can recover the full amount from any one of the defendants, with the others being discharged from the payment obligation once the debt is settled.
The damages may be paid in United States dollars or their equivalent in Zimbabwe Gold (ZiG), calculated at the applicable bank rate on the date of payment.
The defendants were also ordered to pay interest at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment until the full amount is settled, together with Ngwenya’s legal costs.
Leave a Reply