Former Finance minister Ignatius Chombo and fired Zanu PF
youth leader Kudzanai Chipanga, will today appear at the High Court where their
bail appeals are set to be entertained, three weeks after they were arrested by
the military in an operation meant to weed out alleged criminals within the
ruling party.
However, Chipanga, who is in custody over allegations of
communicating falsehoods, has denied the charge, saying he simply expressed his
political opinion when he read the statement which led to his political demise,
while Chombo is facing a plethora of charges, among them, fraud, criminal abuse
of office and corruption.
Chipanga, who is currently being held at the Harare Remand
Prison, made the remarks in his bail statement, through his lawyer, Lovemore
Madhuku.
Chipanga said he did not deny reading the criminalised
statement, but that when he read it, he was simply expressing his political
opinion and that the very statement was not covered by any sections of the law.
“The appellant [Chipanga] does not deny reading the
statement in question. He said as much in his warned-and-cautioned statement.
His statement is all over the world. His defence is one of law. He has two
principal legal arguments that will destroy the State’s case,” Madhuku said.
“Firstly, the statement is not covered by the sections of
the code cited. It cannot be false. It was an expression of a political
opinion. The charge is invalid.
“Secondly, and to the extent to which the charge maybe
valid, he will challenge the constitutionality of the provisions in question.”
Madhuku further said Chipanga’s continued incarceration and
the charges were an infringement of section 61 and 67 of the Constitution,
adding the matter would soon be referred to the Constitutional Court.
The lawyer also said the magistrate ought to have simply
granted his client bail and ordered that he should not interfere with
witnesses.
“Further, given, reporting conditions, the police will be
able to monitor the activities of the appellant if necessary. The learned
magistrate ignored the fact placed before her that the appellant had been
expelled from his political party and was no longer the youth leader,” he said,
adding in Chipanga’s case, no witnesses were required.
Turning to the issue of Chipanga’s safety, Madhuku said:
“There is no evidence of a public outcry, but that is not the point.
The point is that it is precisely to prevent trial by the
public that a presumption of innocence is entrenched in the Constitution . . .
The suggestion that bail may be denied to ‘secure’ an accused person against
his/her wishes is not only strange but also, and more fundamentally, shows lack
of independence on the part of the learned magistrate.” Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment