Andrew Lethon Shumba and 88 Others v The State

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo misdirected itself in finding appellants posed danger to public safety","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No evidence presented by State on public safety risk"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo wrongly applied judicial notice to online videos","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Videos not authenticated or formally produced"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether appellants were identified in alleged protest videos","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No individual identification established"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether court a quo failed to consider appellants' uncontroverted alibi defences","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellants' affidavits unchallenged by State"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether finding that appellants would continue protesting was speculative","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No evidence linking appellants to future protest plans"}

Background