Mhlanga has
been languishing in remand prison since his arrest for allegedly transmitting
data messages that incite public violence.
Mhlanga’s
lawyer Chris Mhike requested Justice Mandaza to intervene and order the State
to release the evidence to the court and the defence so that the court make an
informed determination in the case.
Mhike argued
that what is written on the request for remand form was different from what was
uttered in the recordings.
The defence
said it tried to engage the State but it was not interested in that discussion.
“I tried to
engage the State before commencing the court but he was not interested allowing
the appellant to challenge the evidence.
“We can have an
adjournment to midday to allow the State to avail these evidence,” Mhike said.
“This is
important because the State presented the accused with quotes of words that
have been allegedly transmitted which are completely different from the words
on the request for remand case.
“The
prosecutors have a warned and cautioned statement which they cannot release
because of the privilege they have on the docket.
“We believe in
the importance of video graphic evidence in securing our arguments,” he said.
Conversely the
State said the defence should have requested the said evidence at the
magistrate court where Mhlanga initially appeared.
Mhike
challenged the States assertion that he did not request the evidence at the
magistrate court and referred the judge to the court transcript saying he had
tried to request the said evidence but magistrate Farai Gwitima could have none
of it.
“lt is not true
that the issue of evidence arrived for the first time on these proceedings. We
did point to the issue of electronic and video graphic evidence at the lower
court and we did attack the credibility of that evidence so it is a
continuation of request from what we did at the lower court.
“We are raising
this issue for the second time with the hope that the High Court will have a
fairer hearing as the magistrate court did not want to
hear anything
of that sought,” Mhike said.
“The State
seems to be entrenching the views of the magistrates court so in our grounds of
appeal we challenge the reasoning of the magistrate court.”
However, the
judge took an adjournment to determine on the application for request of
further particulars.
The judge is
expected to rule on the request and the determination will direct the
proceedings if there will be further arguments or ruling on bail.
On Thursday
Mhike complained that his client’s record was being kept as a security record
and that the process to retrieve the record from the security record room took
time. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment