Former Midlands Provincial Affairs Minister Jason Machaya
has to wait for his trial on charges of criminal abuse of office to be
completed before he can seek a review by a higher court or appeal, the High
Court has ruled.
Machaya and his co-accused, Chaisanyerwa Chibururu, had
approached the High Court to stop the trial after the presiding magistrate
threw out their application for discharge at the close of the State’s case.
They felt the lower court erred at law and fact in finding
that they have a case to answer, describing the decision placing them on their
defence as “grossly irregular”. Justice Pisirayi Kwenda last week threw out the
application for lacking merit.
He accepted the State’s submissions that there were no
exceptional circumstances justifying the High Court to interfere with a trial
in progress before a court with competent jurisdiction.
It was also noted in the judgment that the prosecution had
made a case on how Machaya and Chibururu corruptly discharged their functions
as public officials.
“There is no likelihood of any harm befalling the
applicants (Machaya and Chibururu) which cannot be corrected by way of appeal
or review after judgment by the trial court,” said Justice Kwenda.
“I am not persuaded that there are compelling reasons to
interfere with the trial which is still in progress. In the result . . . this
application be and is hereby dismissed.”
The judgment noted that during the hearing of the
application, the applicants’ lawyer, Mr Alec Muchadehama totally refrained from
addressing the court on the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting
interference by the High Court in criminal proceedings in progress before a
court with competent jurisdiction.
Machaya and Chibururu are on trial at the Gweru Regional
Magistrates’ Court. They deny the charges.
The two had applied for discharge arguing that the State
had failed to make its case beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that it must lead
cogent and impeccable evidence before they could be placed on their defence.
The application was rejected.
Upset by the trial magistrate’s decision to put them on
their defence, the two filed an application for review at the High Court. That application is pending.
The interlocutory application sought to stop the
magistrates court trial pending the outcome of the review.
He said as the then Minister of State for Midlands he was
entitled to 10 percent of stands developed on State land which is in line with
the common law and the “annexation” of the stands in question was within the
parameters of the law.
But the State, contends that Machaya intentionally
allocated State land totalling 17 799 stands to land developers which was
inconsistent with his duties.
Prosecutors further say Machaya did not have any lawful
responsibility to allocate State land to the developers and entities as the
allocation of the State land was the sole function and lawful responsibility of
the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing.
The court also heard that he received 1 791 commonage
stands from the land developers and entities which constituted 18 percent of
the total stands on the allocated State land.
It is further alleged that Machaya sold 1 185 of the
stands, which was also inconsistent with his duties as the stands can only be
allocated and distributed by the Minister of Local Government and Public Works.
He is alleged to have also allocated 192 commonage stands
to Apostolic Christian Church of Zimbabwe (ACCZ) when he did not have the right
or function to do this. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment