The trial of MDC-Alliance members — Joana Mamombe, Cecilia Chimbiri and Netsai Marova — on allegations of faking their abductions sometime last year opened yesterday despite the trio’s spirited efforts to avoid prosecution through a plethora of applications, which the State said were aimed at delaying the hearing.
Mamombe, Chimbiri and Marova, who were being represented by
lawyers Mr Alec Muchadehama and Mr Jeremiah Bamu, denied the charges when they
appeared before Deputy Chief Magistrate Mrs Bianca Makwande.
They are charged with publishing falsehoods prejudicial to
the State. Through Mr Muchadehama, the trio told the court that there was a
provisional order granted by the High Court last December for the stay of court
proceedings.
Mr Muchadehama said the High Court order had provisionally
barred the courts from hearing the matter of Chimbiri and Marova.
The State applied for separation of their trials after
Mamombe was deemed not fit to comprehend proceedings and it was granted.
Irked by the magistrate’s decision to grant the separation
of trials, Chimbiri and Marova approached the High Court seeking a review of
the lower court’s ruling.
Mr Muchadehama then applied for the postponement of the
matter to another day pending the High Court’s decision on their application
for review and in light of the provisional order for stay of proceedings that
he claimed was granted by Justice Zhou in December.
“On December 17, 2020 we obtained a provisional order at
High Court in which separation of trial was stayed pending decision of the
order for the trial of Chimbiri and Marova to be stayed.
“What that means is that order stayed these trials. All
these trials had been stayed at the High Court,” he said.
Mr Muchadehama claimed that the State, through Mr Richard
Chikosha, consented to granting of the review for separation of trial.
The State led by Mr Michael Reza said Mr Muchadehama’s
application was misplaced arguing that they intended to prosecute the three not
Chimbiri and Marova, who were mentioned in the provisional order staying
proceedings.
“The arguments are misplaced. The orders they drafted were
straightforward. They were saying trial against Chimbiri and Marova should be
stayed. “The State wants to put charges to the three and there is no order
against the three accused persons,” he said.
Mr Reza also told the court that there was no order signed
by the High Court judge confirming the stay of proceedings of the trio.
“There is no order signed by the judge as they alleged.
Registrar of High Court confirmed that there is no such order,” he said.
In her ruling Mrs Makwande said there was no order that was
placed before the court staying proceedings in the matter and ordered that trial
commences. But Mr Muchadehama was not outdone with the court’s ruling. He then
told the Mrs Makwande that they had indicated in their application for review
of separation of trials that they wanted her to recuse herself from handling
the matter.
Mr Muchadehama argued that even if there was no order
staying the proceedings, Mrs Makwande was not eligible to hear the matter as
they had applied for her recusal. He said they wanted to wait for the High
Court’s determination before she presided over the matter.
Again Mrs Makwande refused to entertain his application for
her recusal saying they had already made it at the High Court through their
application for a review on ruling on separation of trials.
Mr Muchadehama launched another bid to take the matter to
the High Court challenging Mrs Makwande’s decision.
Mr Muchadehama said he wanted the High Court to establish
the meaning of a provisional order and challenge Mrs Makwande’s refusal to
entertain their application for recusal.
Mrs Makwande insisted on the opening of the trial saying
the trio’s applications can be made even at the midst of the trial.
Mr Muchadehama then made another application asking for
further documents, which he said they needed for preparation of their defence.
Among the documents they requested from the State are an
expert witness statement, warrant of search and seizure from Econet and all
statements made by detective Morgan Chafa during investigations.
They also requested for statement from police who undertook
forensic finger prints from motor vehicle allegedly used in the abductions.
Mr Muchadehama also demanded specific details on relatives,
legal practitioners and friends that Mamombe, Chimbiri and Marova communicated
during the alleged abductions.
Mr Reza told the court that they furnished the trio with
all the documents they had requested on July 28, 2020 with Mr Bamu having
signed for the papers upon being furnished.
Mr Muchadehama then rose to make an application for
referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court saying his clients’ rights
had been violated.
The court refused to entertain the application saying he
was supposed to place the State on notice before such an application was made.
It was when the trial opened with the trio denying the
charges. The matter was postponed to May 5 for trial continuation.
Mamombe and Chimbiri’s bail appeal hearing on another
separate criminal charge has been set for Friday at the High Court.
Meanwhile, another political activist Tererai Obey Sithole,
yesterday appeared in court charged with criminal nuisance after he allegedly
sprayed graffiti at the New Government Complex in Harare on April 1 while
demonstrating with other political activists.
He is expected back in court today for bail ruling. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment