ZLHR Press Release – 16 Nov : Deputy Agriculture Minister-Designate, Roy Bennett on Monday 16 November 2009 pleaded not guilty to charges of insurgency, banditry, sabotage and terrorism after they were read to him for the first time in court by Attorney General (AG), Johannes Tomana.
Earlier on Justice Bhunu refused to recuse himself from presiding over the trial as requested by Bennett’s lawyers last week. He delivered his ruling in Chambers before Bennett’s lawyers Beatrice Mtetwa and Trust Maanda together with State lawyers, Tomana, Chris Mutangadura and Florence Ziyambi.
As the trial commenced in earnest, Tomana told the court that Bennett [who is facing several charges ranging from possessing weaponry for insurgency, banditry, sabotage and terrorism to incitement to commit insurgency, banditry or terrorism] plotted, together with Peter Michael Hitschmann, to depose a lawful government through the use of violence, insurgence, banditry, sabotage and terrorism.
Tomana alleged that Bennett was the financier to the acquisition of firearms and also planned the demolition of a Microwave link, which is a communication system that uses a beam of radio waves in the microwave frequency range to transmit information between two fixed locations.
After Bennett pleaded not guilty to the charges Tomana led evidence from the State’s first witness, Chief Superintendent Sipho James Makone of Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Mutare, who arrested Hitschmann on 6 March 2006 and is the investigating officer in the case.
However Mtetwa objected after Tomana started leading evidence she claimed was based on hearsay.
Justice Bhunu, who adjourned court before lunchtime to consider Mtetwa’s objection, ruled when proceedings resumed after lunch that Makone should restrict himself only to what he did and found out or discovered, and not hearsay.
Justice Bhunu then deferred the matter to Tuesday 17 November 2009 after Tomana asked for a postponement to consider Bhunu’s ruling which he said “he wasn’t anticipating”.
Does it mean thus the end of Tomana’s case as it is based all on hearsay.
It should, but Tomana has gone away for instructions, or to allow the Judge to be instructed…I just find Our Courts baffling. (Ed)
Why is the state continuing with the case when it is clear that they have no credible witnesses against Bennet?Can evidence really be manufactured like what Tomana is trying to do?It is also damaging for the AG himself to lead the prosecution.If the state loses the case like it is going to Tomana will lose credibility.
If Tomana looses this case as he most likely will, then thats his job down the drain and he will be the first to be sacrificed between him and Gono.
I am not a legal mind at all but I find the events on Monday 16 Nov before Justice Bhunu very interesting. First it is Bhunu himself who refuses to recuse himself giving a very valid reason that these cases are quite different. The Judge is now bound to prove to all and sundry that he is impartial. This is a great victory for Bennet’s legal team as his ruling on the inadmissibility of “hearsay evidence” (which is actually fake evidence in reality) revealed his new modus operandi. In this ruling he has all but annulled his earlier ruling that Hitchmann”s evidence was admissible. I have always known that Tomana was a legal lightweight but the following decisions taken by this moron are even more damaging to his non-existent case.
1. Bringing in as star witness someone who has not only been acquited of the same charges but who is more inclined to be a defence witness.
2. Deciding that this star witness will testify last with secondary or tertiary witnesses openning the state case.
3. Revealing to the court that he did not anticipate that his witnesses will not be allowed to testify on hearsay. This suggest that this bufoon clearly did not know criminal procedure acts yet he is the chief law officer or simply thought the judge was in his pocket. He also never thought through this case. Please poor Tomana just drop this case before you reveal how incompetent you are to even be a court interpreter.
This case is not about who is acquitted or convicted. This is about intimidation of opposing forces and wanton harassment of rival politicians.
The outcome of these trials is not relevant it is the effect they have on the opposition that Zanu is more interested in.
For example MT’s Ari Ben Menashe/treason trial is cited as one of the factors that led to the MDC’s split! The confusion it throws into the MDC camp is more valuable than an actual conviction.
Tomana is under instruction to chase his own tail, bungle the case to the max, be as incompetent as a blind driver and drag his own feet until the MDC is weary!
-Vakuru Chaivo-
***Using courts as a political tool was originated by the Rhodesian Front and perfected by Zanu PF, Law and Order Maintenance Act = Public Order and Security Act***
Hear!Hear! Vakuru chaivo.
Some people are too myopic to see what you have just said. The idea is to break down the opposition emotionally such that they will be thankfull when they get aqcuited as if they committed a crime in the first place.It only dawns on them years later that their time was wasted when its too late.chuckle!!!!!!
Unfortunately these lawyers who agree to take instructions from a criminal called Patrick Chinamasa will have more serious career damaging injuries than what they hope to inflict on the MDC.
During apatheid in South Africa there were “cardboard box witnesses”. Are we not seeing a similar fashion in independent Zimbabwe? What ever we are doing we are creating history that will not be errased.
If TO**** Loses the case he will be promoted to A.G++