Mupfumira had applied for a separate trial from Masoka,
whom she said was her star witness during trial.
She told the court that Masoka was the accounting officer
during their tenure of office and was the best person to articulate
transactions that led to her arrest on criminal abuse of office and concealing
a transaction from a principal.
Mr Mutevedzi dismissed her application saying there were
witnesses who had testified and linked her to the offence during the on-going
trial.
So yesterday Mupfumira filed an application for review of
Mr Mutevedzi’s decision at the High Court saying he erred as the witnesses he
said linked her to the offence have not yet testified during the trial.
In dismissing Mupfumira’s application, Mr Mutevedzi said
State witnesses Ray Ndhlukula and James Matiza had already given evidence that
linked her to the offence, but the two are yet to testify. She argued that the
irregularity made by Mr Mutevedzi can only be cured by the High Court on
review.
Mupfumira, in the application prepared by lawyer Mr Admire
Rubaya, cited Mr Mutevedzi and Ngoni Masoka as respondents.
It was argued that the record of proceedings in the
Regional Magistrates Court would show that Ray Ndhlukula and James Matiza had
not yet testified and so that the statement that the two had testified and
mentioned both co-accused in their testimonies is therefore not true .
Mupfumira said Mr Mutevedzi acknowledged making the
irregularity in his ruling after Masoka’s lawyer Mr Tshuma indicated to him
that Ndhlukula and Matiza were yet to testify.
She said Mr Mutevedzi went to amend the ruling without
giving reasons and without inviting submissions from parties on whether he
could competently make the alteration.
The application to the High Court argues that the
magistrate had no power to alter his ruling once he had pronounced it as that
would amount to a court exercising review powers over its own judgment. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment