The justification for private prosecution is grounded in ensuring justice for victims when public prosecutors either fail to prosecute or decide not to pursue a case possibly due to conflicts of interest, lack of resources, or other reasons. Private prosecution serves as a check and balance on public prosecution, preventing potential misuse or arbitrary decisions by public authorities.

The amendment to Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (CPEA) following the Telecel Zimbabwe Pvt Ltd V AG of Zimbabwe SC 1/2014 case clarified the process of private prosecution. It aimed to streamline the procedures and criteria under which private prosecutions could be initiated, ensuring that they were not used frivolously or vexatiously. This change was intended to enhance the efficiency and integrity of private prosecutions within the judicial system.

The Prosecutor General can lawfully withhold a certificate of nolle prosequi in cases where the public interest is better served by the state maintaining control over prosecution decisions. Additionally, if the case lacks sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution or if continuing would contravene legal principles or rights, the certificate can be withheld. This decision must be justifiable within legal and ethical frameworks.

A lawful arrest requires legal authority based on probable cause or a warrant. The procedures followed must comply with statutory and constitutional provisions, including informing the accused of their rights and the reason for arrest. Remedies for unlawful arrest include filing a motion for release, seeking dismissal of charges, and suing for damages for wrongful arrest or malicious prosecution.

An arrest with a warrant requires judicial authorization and is based on a judge determining there's probable cause for arrest. On the other hand, an arrest without a warrant relies on police discretion, typically used when a crime occurs in the officer’s presence or when there is reasonable suspicion of felony. The implication is that warrantless arrests may be subjected to more scrutiny regarding legality and necessity.

To alter an accused person’s statement, the prosecutor must formally request the change, providing clear justification and evidence supporting the alteration's necessity. This process typically involves seeking court approval, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal standards to protect the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.

In both confirmed and unconfirmed statements, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that the statement was made freely and voluntarily. This ensures the protection of the accused’s rights against coercion or duress, maintaining high standards of legal integrity within criminal proceedings.

A trial within a trial occurs during a criminal case to resolve disputes over the admissibility of certain evidence, ensuring voluntariness and legality without prejudice to the main trial. The confirmation procedure involves a pre-trial process where a judicial officer evaluates the genuineness and voluntariness of a confession or statement independently, validating it for use in the main trial.

The four methods are summons, arrest with a warrant, arrest without a warrant, and written notice to appear. A summons is an order issued by a court for an individual to appear before it at a specified time. An arrest with a warrant is conducted based on a court order, authorizing law enforcement to detain the individual. An arrest without a warrant can be conducted by police in situations where they catch a suspect in the act of committing a crime or have reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in a felony. A written notice to appear is a formal notification by an officer requiring the accused to attend court proceedings.

Extracurial statements are those made outside of court, such as confessions or admissions. Confirmed statements have been verified for authenticity and accuracy, often by a prior judicial process, and are admissible as evidence. Unconfirmed statements have not undergone such scrutiny and require more rigorous processes to establish voluntariness and credibility before admission.