CCC legislator Job Sikhala authored his own calamity when he was arrested on charges of incitement to commit public violence in flagrant disregard of a court order prohibiting him from conduct likely to incite others to commit acts of violence.
Sikhala, along with his co-accused Godfrey Sithole, are
battling to obtain bail pending trial on fresh charges of incitement to commit
acts of violence.
The remand court has on several occasions rejected his
requests for bail because of his propensity to re-offend.
In July, the High Court endorsed the decision by a
magistrate to keep Sikhala and Sithole in custody until they are tried on their
charges of incitement to commit violence, on the basis that Sikhala had been
arrested on similar offences in the past and had a heightened propensity to
re-offend.
The ruling against the opposition legislators followed an
appeal for bail at the higher court.
But Justice Lucy-Anne Mungwari threw out the appeal noting
that the decision of the remand court was not premised on conjecture but was
backed by tangible transgressions on the part of Sikhala.
Sikhala is facing a similar charge on which he is on bail
on conditions that pending the finalisation of the matter, he should not post
videos or audios on social media platforms which would incite others to commit
acts violence.
He was also ordered not to address any gathering, WhatsApp group
or virtual meeting using words, gestures likely to incite others to commit acts
of violence.
But his legal counsel viewed the bail conditions imposed on
Sikhala as superfluous and argued they were unnecessary.
“That thinking is certainly unfortunate,” said Justice
Mungwari, disagreeing with Sikhala’s legal counsel, adding that a court order
could never be superfluous.
The judge made it clear that where a court order is not
challenged remains in extant and to allege that one cannot abide by it because
it is superfluous is unacceptable and actually dangerous in cases to do with
breach of bail conditions.
“An accused who is on bail and who rubbishes the conditions
attached to his admission to bail disrespects court orders and disregards the
law,” said Justice Mungwari.
“His actions are likely to undermine the proper functioning
of the criminal justice system and particularly the bail system.”
“It is not a litigant, but a court of superior authority
that determines the correctness or otherwise of a court decision.”
Justice Mungwari in her judgment explained that where a
litigant believes a court order to be wrong, the law required that the litigant
must observe the order and only seek to impugn it in proper legal ways such as
review or appeal. The court also rejected the defence argument that Sikhala and
Sithole did not commit the offence.
To worsen their situation, the duo did not even challenge
their placement on remand on the specified allegations during the remand
process.
At that stage all that the State is required to do is not
to show that the suspects committed the offence, but that there is reasonable
suspicion that they committed the crime.
In this regard, Justice Mungwari upheld the remand court
decision as proper, finding no misdirection on the remand court to warrant
Sikhala and Sithole released on bail.
She also noted that Sikhala had on many occasions been
arrested for a similar offence showing Sikhala had a heightened propensity to
re-offend, when they mobilised their party supporters to unleash violence in
Nyatsime, Chitungwiza, during a memorial service for Moreblessing Ali.
Ali, who the CCC said was their supporter, was abducted
outside a nightclub in Nyatsime on May 14 and her dismembered remains were
discovered in a disused well at a farm in Beatrice, about 10km away from where
she was taken.
The prime suspect in her murder, Pius Jamba (31), has since
been arrested and was remanded in custody.
0 comments:
Post a Comment