Poacher loses appeal in trophy possession case

By Paul Nkala
Chronicle February 9, 2009



A VILLAGER from Mpande area of Zezani in Beitbridge district who was convicted and fined for poaching two kudu worth $16 million and being found in possession of a trophy of a protected species last week had his appeal against both conviction and sentence dismissed.
Justice Lawrence Kamocha, sitting with Justice Nicholas Ndou said the reasons for dismissing Rambani Sibanda’s appeal would follow later.
The case against Sibanda was that on an unknown date to the prosecution but during the month of October 2005, he went to Jonsly Ranch in West Nicholson armed with a 303 rifle.
He hunted and killed two male kudu, skinned them and carried the meat to his homestead.
On 28 October the same year, police received information that Sibanda was carrying out hunts using a rifle and they raided his homestead and carried out a search.
They recovered 34 kg of dried game meat from Sibanda’s fields and the rifle was recovered from behind the seat of his motor vehicle together with a blood-stained overall.
Police also recovered a pangolin hide.
Sibanda pleaded not guilty to contravening two counts of contravening sections of the Parks and Wildlife Act but was convicted.
He was fined $1 million in default or payment ofthree months in prison. The rifle was forfeited to the State and he was ordered to pay compensation of $26 million to the Gwanda Rural District Council.
Sibanda through his lawyer, Mr Samp Mlaudzi, of Samp Mlaudzi and Partners Legal Practitioners, on 21 August 2007 lodged an appeal against both conviction and sentence arguing that he was not properly convicted.
In denying the charges Sibanda had argued that the police had found meat in a neighbour’s field and raised the issue of being assaulted by the police.
Mr Mlaudzi argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no evidence to show the court that indeed Sibanda went out to hunt in the said ranch.
“There is no evidence that the owner of the ranch lost two male kudu. No independent witness testified to the effect that appellant (Sibanda) was the owner of the field in which the meat was found.
“There were many possible suspects as is stated by the two State witnesses who say they searched many homes before they got to the appellant. And most likely every neighbour of appellant knew he had a firearm and the chance of falsely implicating him are very high,” submitted Mr Mlaudzi.
In conclusion Mr Mlaudzi noted that the two and only State witnesses were the arresting police officers who assaulted his client to the extent that he was hospitalised. In response, Mr Whisper Mabaudi, of the Attorney General’s Office argued that Sibanda was properly convicted.
“Notwithstanding the fact that there was no direct evidence concerning the hunting activities of the appellant, the circumstantial evidence which was presented in court was sufficient to secure a conviction,” submitted Mr Mabaudi.
He contends that in terms of Section 97 (1) of the Parks and Wildlife Act, the possession of meat or trophy of a freshly killed animal shall be prima facie evidence against a person accused of having hunted such animal. He submitted that the sentence imposed did not induce a sense of shock and was appropriate.
He noted that the trial court properly took into consideration the mitigating factors together with the fact that the police during his arrest had assaulted Sibanda.
The court, however, in aggravation noted that Sibanda was not a first offender but had on 1 July 2002 been convicted of a similar offence.

What are those fines about .05 cents US?