The prosecutor, Anesu Chirenje, attempted to serve the
lawyers with a piece of evidence that was rejected by the court on the last
hearing.
The lawyers described it as an attempt to smuggle evidence
into the record.
They argued this would be prejudicial to their clients as
they prepared and prosecuted their defence without it.
Admire Rubaya, who is representing the Kombo couple, wrote:
“We write herein to address your highly concerning attempt
to introduce an email extract into the record during the recent trial, which we
are deeply disturbed by as it amounts to smuggling the so-called extract in a
manner which we deem unethical and highly improper.
“We, therefore, firmly reject your attempt to serve this
document in this manner.
“The State availed and served us with an affidavit
containing only one annexure, which is a schedule not an email extract.”
He added: “It is worrying that your unfortunate conduct of
having ‘slept at work’ demonstrates a concerning lapse in diligence because you
failed to provide the crucial email extract that you now intend to rely on.
“Such an omission, or oversight, was brazenly negligent on
the part of the State to say the least. Attempting to discover it now is
unfair, unlawful, abusive and an unprocedural tactic.
“With all due respect, we contend that your position as a public prosecutor should not be used to hit our client below the belt on the basis of service of the document that never was discovered before the commencement of the trial.” H Metro
0 comments:
Post a Comment