THE son of High Court Judge, Justice Garainesu Mawadze,
Munyaradzi, who is accused of killing a cellphone dealer in Harare early this
year, is contesting having his blood samples taken for comparison with his
blood-stained clothes recovered during the murder investigations.
This is part of efforts by the Zimbabwe Republic Police to
build its case against Mawadze and his accomplices, Elvin Dongo Saungweme and
Dellon David Balani.
They stand accused of killing Million Ncube by slitting his
throat with a knife after robbing him of three iPhone Promax 11 cellphones.
On June 24, the magistrates’ court issued a warrant
authorising police to extract blood samples from Mawadze “for the purposes of
analysis or comparison with his recovered blood-stained clothes”.
Mawadze is now suing police commissioner-general Godwin
Matanga, the police detail who obtained the warrant, Alexander Jachi and Harare
provincial magistrate Vongai Muchuchuti wanted the warrant set aside.
He also wanted the High Court to order Matanga and Jachi
not to compel him to produce any blood sample without his written consent.
“I have not given my consent for such production and I am
in objection to producing my body tissue to the police without my consent,”
reads Mawadze’s affidavit.
“My blood samples will do very little in the manner of
evidence since the police already have samples of blood of the deceased person
and can match them against the blood on my clothes or my car seat. Whether my
blood is found on my clothes or in my car is neither here nor there in
establishing the State case.
“I have not claimed any blood to be mine, but have
explained why there was the deceased’s blood on my clothes and in the car.”
The warrant was issued in terms of the Criminal Procedure
and Evidence Act and Mawadze argued that the provisions of that law do not
provide for compulsion production of bodily tissue without the consent of the
owner.
“I am convinced that directing production of my blood
sample is not contemplated in terms of the Act as it is an extension of my body
which is contemplated by the Constitution as having a right to personal
security and bodily integrity,” he added.
“This is akin to the right against self-incrimination and
the right to silence in that an accused person has a right not to be compelled
to give self-incriminating evidence and to remain silent.”
The case is yet to be set for hearing. Daily News
0 comments:
Post a Comment