Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum has raised red flags over delays in the determination of bail for four Zimbabwe National Students Union (ZINASU) members arrested on May 17.

In a letter addressed to Harare Provincial magistrate Vongai Guwuriro-Muchuchuti, the forum said the delays were unjustified given that bail proceedings are inherently urgent.

The four: Emmanuel Sitima, Comfort Mpofu, Tawanda Watadza and Lionel Madamombe were arrested on charges of malicious damage to property.

The State alleges the quartet defaced seven city buildings: the Parliament of Zimbabwe, High Court of Zimbabwe, Trinity Methodist of Zimbabwe, Constitutional Court, Commercial Court, Harare Civil Magistrates Court and Runhare Building.

RELATED: ZINASU members accused of defacing Courts, Parliament building appear in court

"We are concerned about what we consider undue delays in the treatment and determination of bail for our clients, who were arrested on 17 May 2023 and to this day, 30 May 2023, bail proceedings are yet to be finalised on account of delays for which we think should and can be avoided, given that bail proceedings are inherently urgent," reads the letter.

According to the letter, bail is inherently urgent and section 117A (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:071 which regulates bail applications states that 'Every application in terms of subsection (2) shall be disposed of without undue delay'.

"It is our considered opinion that the delays which have visited this matter and the reasons thereof as documented above, invoke a sense of shock, and can only have the result and effect of subtracting from what both section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution and section 117A (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:071 require."

"We have been instructed by the four accused persons to bring to your attention their concerns about the undue delays in dispensing with the bail proceedings in the matter in view of the urgency and importance attached to bail proceedings in terms of the law.

"Section 50(1)(d) of the Constitution provides that any continued detention of an accused person must be on the basis of compelling reasons," the letter said.

The matter has so far been postponed twice under unclear circumstances.