Zimbabwe: Supreme Court Upholds Lengthy Jail Terms for Ivory Smugglers
THE Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has upheld the convictions and lengthy prison terms of two men found guilty of unlawful possession of raw ivory.
The court ruled that their defence of intending to surrender the tusks was “meritless and legally unsustainable.”
Justices Rita Makarau Guvava, Susan Makoni, and Felistas Chatukuta recently dismissed the appeal by Hlupani Austin Sibanda and Ellmone Nkomo, who were earlier sentenced by a Bulawayo magistrate to 11 years and 9 years imprisonment respectively for contravening section 82(1) of the Parks and Wildlife (General) Regulations.
The pair was arrested in April 2024 carrying a 21.75-kilogram sack of unmarked ivory pieces.
According to the court record, Sibanda attempted to flee and only stopped when detectives from the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Minerals, Flora and Fauna Unit fired a warning shot.
In their defence, the men claimed they had picked up the tusks in Lupane while herding cattle and were on their way to surrender them to Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife offices in Bulawayo for a reward.
They argued that the law gave them a 15-day grace period to hand over the ivory.
But the Supreme Court found their explanation implausible.
“The appellants did not acquire the ivory lawfully and in turn could not lawfully possess it for registration purposes. Their whole conduct showed that they were aware of their unlawful possession.”
The court said the argument that they were within the 15-day window under section 77 of the Parks and Wildlife Regulations was misplaced because the provision only applies to lawfully acquired ivory.
“Ignorance of the law is no defence. The belief held by the appellants was not sufficient to cover their conduct with legality,” the judgment stated.
The judges further noted that the duo’s decision to travel from Lupane to Bulawayo under the cover of night and Sibanda’s attempt to run away from police undermined their story.
“If their possession was lawful, they would have behaved in a completely different way,” the court said, adding that the claim of expecting a reward was “not reasonably true as the offices concerned do not give out rewards.”
By New Zimbabwe.
