CCC members Joana Mamombe and Cecilia Chimbiri yesterday lost their bid to stop their trial, where they now have to present a defence case, saying they wanted the High Court to review the magistrate’s decision to dismiss their application for discharge at the close of the State case.
Mamombe and Chimbiri were yesterday supposed to start their
defence case on charges of faking their abductions in May 2020, with Chief
Magistrate Mrs Faith Mushure last week dismissing their application for
discharge at the close of the State case.
Mrs Mushure said in particular, the defence needed to
explain how and why material was uploaded from their mobile phones onto social
media platforms at a time they claimed to have been abducted.
Through their lawyer, Mr Alec Muchadehama, Mamombe and
Chimbiri told the Chief Magistrate that they failed to file the application on
Wednesday at the High Court seeking a review because of logistical issues.
In their application for a trial postponement until the
High Court settles the matter, the two said one of their defence lawyers was
then at the High Court filing the application for review.
They argued that there were high prospects of success at
the High Court, arguing that the two offences they were charged with were
unconstitutional.
Mamombe and Chimbiri are charged with communicating
falsehoods prejudicial to the State and alternatively violating the Covid-19
regulations.
They also argue that the court acted injudiciously when it
put the two on their defence, saying that move was aimed at bolstering a weak
State case.
They also argued that the magistrate’s court was
manufacturing evidence in its original ruling dismissing their application for
discharge.
The State led by Mr Michael Reza opposed the application
for review saying there was no evidence placed before the court to prove that
anyone had filed anything at the High Court.
Moreover, the two failed to place before the court an order
from the High Court ordering a stay of the trial proceedings.
He argued that allowing for stay of proceedings was
tantamount to the Chief Magistrate reviewing her own initial ruling dismissing
the application for discharge.
“This application wants you to review your own decision,”
said Mr Reza.
“There is no evidence that application for review has been
submitted. There is also nothing from superior courts ordering stay of these
proceedings.
“In fact, he (the defence lawyer) is in the wrong court; he
ought to make those submissions in a superior court. These proceedings must
proceed.”
Mrs Mushure, in her ruling after hearing the two sets of
argument, said a mere filing of an application for review at the High Court
does not stop trial proceedings. She also noted the two accused failed to give
valid reasons in their application for stay of proceeding. So she dismissed
their application for a stay in their trial until the High Court made a
decision.
Mamombe and Chimbiri then quickly came back with another
application for postponement of the trial, while they mounted an urgent chamber
application for stay of proceedings at the High Court.
Mr Muchadehama, in his application, argued that the
postponement would then allow them to file their application for review at the
High Court.
Mr Reza opposed the application arguing that it was similar
to the one which was dismissed.
Again, Mrs Mushure dismissed this second postponement
application, saying an expression to file an application at the High Court did
not stop trial proceedings and ordered that the trial continued.
Because of time taken in dealing with these postponement
applications, Mr Muchadehama then requested that the trial continued on another
day.
Mr Reza agreed, and Mrs Mushure set September 28 for
Mamombe and Chimbiri to start mounting their defence case. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment