Sikhala is jointly charged with fellow CCC legislator
Godfrey Karakadzai Sithole on incitement to commit public violence. Through
lawyer Mr Jeremiah Bamu, Sikhala indicated that he wanted the court proceedings
to be stayed pending his application for review of Harare magistrates Mrs
Tafadzwa Miti’s decision to dismiss his application for her recusal.
Yesterday, Sikhala told the court that he had since filed
the application for review at the High Court and wanted to make a request for
temporary stay of proceedings pending the upper court’s determination.
He said he intended to file the request on February 8.
The State led by Mr George Manokore indicated that he will
respond to the application on February 13, with the court expected to make a
ruling on February 20.
Mrs Miti, in dismissing Sikhala’s application for recusal,
noted that he had failed to place reasonable grounds showing apprehension of
bias on her part. The court ruled that Sikhala’s fears emanated from grounds
surrounding the dismissal of his bail application on changed circumstances and
vowed to impartially preside over the matter.
Mrs Miti ruled that the outcome of the trial will be based
on evidence adduced during the trial.
Mr Bamu had argued that Mrs Miti had formulated a position
towards Sikhala in a ruling dismissing his bail application in changed
circumstances.
In his application seeking recusal of Mrs Miti from
presiding over the matter, Sikhala claimed the magistrate had already
pronounced herself on the merits of the trial before his hearing.
Sikhala claimed that Mrs Miti had already taken a position
on his conduct and concluded that he had incited violence in Nyatsime.
He argued that he would not receive a fair trial before Mrs
Miti.
The State led by Mr George Manokore had also argued that
Mrs Miti’s ruling in dismissing Sikhala’s bail application on changed
circumstances had no bearing on the outcome of the trial.
“In casu, the applicant feels that the court has shown
through its bail ruling that it has already convicted the applicant,” said Mr
Manokore. “However, that was a bail process which has no bearing on the outcome
of the trial.
“The applicant is worried that the court held that the
accused confirmed that there is now calmness in Nyatsime because the accused is
in custody. The accused actually confirmed that and cited that as a change in
circumstances.
“Such confirmations are allowed in the bail process under
$117A (6) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 9:07).
“So, if the accused made such confirmations then the court
could not ignore such averments or assertions. The court’s ruling as alluded to
above is concerned with facts raised during bail application. The court should
not ignore such facts since they were raised by the accused himself. That in
our view does not show any bias on the person of the court.”
Mr Manokore said there was no reasonable apprehension of
bias that could be deduced from the court’s bail ruling.
He said Sikhala wanted to abuse the court processes by
applying for the recusal of the magistrate.
Sithole, through his lawyer Mr Oliver Marwa, notified the
State that they will apply for separation of trials after the court ruling on
Sikhala’s application for temporary stay of proceedings pending High Court
determination. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment