Former Cottco top executive Maxmore Njanji can still use his passport for a business trip after an attempt by the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC) to block the release of the document temporarily as a modification of his bail conditions failed at the High Court yesterday.
ZACC was told by the High Court that it does not supervise
other Constitutional bodies and while all those fighting crime needed to
co-operate, many of the bodies were independent for good reason and so could
not be ordered around.
Njanji is facing fraud charges involving US$5,8 million in
a suspected high-profile corruption case.
He is out on bail and his passport was held by the clerk of
court as a condition of bail. However, he successfully applied to have it back
to make his business trip. ZACC now objects.
The ZACC case hit a snag after Justice David Mangota struck
the matter off the roll because it was defective and bad at law.
ZACC had sued court officials including magistrates, the
Judicial Service Commission (JSC), National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and
acting Prosecutor-General Nelson Mutsonziwa, after bail conditions of Njanji
were altered under unclear circumstances.
Also listed as respondents in the lawsuit were the clerk of
court, magistrates Taurai Manuwere and Marehwanazvo Gofa, senior regional
magistrate Ngoni Nduna and chief magistrate Faith Mushure.
Through its executive secretary Ms Sukai Tongogara, Zacc
wanted to be furnished with a September 21 record of court proceedings that led
to the release of Njanji’s passport and that the travel document remains in the
clerk of court’s custody until the criminal case he is facing is finalised.
But Justice Mangota agreed with legal counsel of the
respondents that Zacc has no legal basis to supervise the respondents.
He said the Constitution, under which Zacc operates, does
not confer upon it any supervisory role over the clerk of court, NPA and the
Prosecutor-General.
“The respondents are, therefore, within their rights when
they insist on the point that the applicant does not have the requisite locus
standi (the legal right) to sue them as it did,” said Justice Mangota.
“Their statement on the mentioned point is valid and is,
therefore, with merit.”
Njanji had successfully applied for temporary release of
his passport to enable him to travel outside Zimbabwe on a business trip.
But Justice Mangota found Zacc’s reaction to the
newspaper’s articles unfortunate, saying it busied itself on nothing and
invited the judge to “walk with it on a matter which was completely devoid of
any substance”.
“Its appetite to want to encroach on to the work and
functions of such statutory bodies . . . who, like itself, owe their existence
to, and draw their power from, the Constitution as read with their respective
enabling legislations, cannot be condoned let alone accepted,” he said.
“Each of them is guaranteed, by the Constitution, the
liberty to perform its work independently of the others so that none of these
four bodies is allowed to step onto the toes of the other or others. Yet they
must co-operate, one with the other, for the proper administration of justice
in Zimbabwe.
“In their co-operation, which is not a matter of law but
policy, none of them should exercise an oversight role over the other or others
unless the law from which it draws its power allows it to do so.”
ZACC and the institutions it was suing all fall under the
judiciary arm of the State and they work under the general administration of
the JSC which is itself a constitutionally established body. They are not, in
terms of the law, subject to the control or direction of anyone in the
discharge of their judicial functions.
They do not answer to (ZACC) and, save in a few instances
which relate to their conditions of service or some misdemeanour’s on their part
wherein the sixth respondent has some role to play, they work independently of
all independent commissions, ZACC included.
In this regard, Justice Mangota said all these institutions
are “a stand-alone group of persons”., who are their own masters, adding that
they are not subject to the direction or control of either the Executive or the
Legislative arm of the State.
“This application is everything which an urgent matter
should not be. It stands on nothing,” said Justice Mangota adding, “It appears
to have been filed as a way of having (ZACC) showing its intention to impose
itself on other constitutionally established bodies. Those stood their ground,
correctly in my view, and made sure that it backs off. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment