Attorney General Johannes Tomana, whose appointment has been questioned by the other senior partner in the government of national unity, the  Movement for Democratic Change, has gone on a public relations campaign to clear his name following the botched bail hearings of political and peace activists.

But, just like Gideon Gono’s campaign in which he placed a supplement in The Herald, at the public’s expense, to justify his incompetence, the political detainees who were granted bail, released, subsequently re-arrested for the same offence, then released again the next day, signal the beginning of the end for Tomana.

Lawyers for Human Rights on the case

Tomana’s Office to which the director of public prosecutions reports, has been accused of ordering prosecutors in political cases against MDC activists to always invoke of Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in the case of MDC accused being granted bail.

Mrs. Ziyambi used it in the case of Chinoto Zulu, Zachariah Nkomo, Mapfumo Garutsa and Regis Mujeyi after they were granted by Justice Omerjee.

It was used again when High Court Judge Justice Tedius Karwi granted bail to Roy Bennett, but the bail was suspended following the invocation of Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (CPEA) by Mutangadura representing the State.

And again in March when 38 of 52 residents of Mutoko, charged with robbery following their attempts to recover their stolen property from Zanu (PF) supporters during the 2008 Presidential election, were remanded in custody.

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) Public Interest Litigation Lawyers Rangu Nyamurundira and Tawanda Zhuwarara found that the facts alleged by the State against the accused persons did not constitute the crime of robbery; the accused’s conduct in recovering their property did not amount to theft – an element essential in the crime of robbery.

They also alleged that investigating police officers acted contrary to their professional opinion following specific instructions being given them by their superiors, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Florence Ziyambi,that they should ensure accused persons remained in custody.

“They had also been directed to invoke section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (CPEA) upon any accused persons being granted bail…”

It was used to deny Chris Dhlamini and Ghandi Mudzingwa their liberty after a judge had decided that they should be granted bail, prompting ZLHR to protest against “disturbing developments” when Dhlamini, Mudzingwa and Andrison Manyere) were granted bail by High Court Judge, Justice Charles Hungwe, on 9 April 2009.

“The order was suspended for 7 days following the immediate, reactionary but predictable invocation of Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act by Chris Mutangadura of the Attorney General’s office” thus ensuring that such accused persons remained in remand prisons irrespective of their deserving bail, said ZLHR.

Last week Tomana last week defended the decision by the state not to call Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa to testify in a corruption trial – a decision which caused the state’s case against Jeffery Tabva and Raymond Williams to collapse.

This was despite the prosecutor promising to approach his boss, the Attorney General, to bring Mnangagwa to testify, since his testimony was crucial to the case. Williams and Tabva were acquitted, with Harare magistrate Lilian Kudya lashing out at the state for not bringing Mnangagwa to testify.

But the The Standard quoted Tomana saying bringing Mnangagwa to court would have added no value to the case. “My job is not to harass people but to call people who add value to what they do. Mnangagwa was not a necessary witness for purposes of proving the offences charged,” he said.

No reasons were advanced by the state in court as to why it eventually decided not to call its “so-called witness” despite that the defence in its state outline and throughout the trial had maintained that the accused were sent by Mnangagwa to purchase the goods at the GMB.

But the man who has been presiding over these prosecution disasters, Tomana, has been trying to white-wash his actions in the state-controlled media campaign that has been published by both the Herald and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation’s Newsnet in another obvious example the state-owned media being abused to defend state personalities.

Tomana said in his “interview” his office is always guided by the laws of Zimbabwe and that the accused (in the Mukoko et al case) have been indicted under a section of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act which provides that the accused shall be indicted after completion of investigations and ahead of a trial.

The MDC activists who had been granted bail were indicted for trial on Monday and were subsequently detained on Tuesday and released yesterday after another bail application which the Attorney General did not oppose.

An agreement between the Attorney General and the defence lawyers was said to have been reached that the accused will be available for trial.

But the accused have always been available for trial, and were remanded in custody after being tortured, despite there being no evidence of the trumped up crime of which they are being accused.

And as Tomana noted himself they had not violated their conditions for bail, and should not have been in custody.

Tomana is obviously trying to justify a political decision which was taken following Tendai Biti’s ultimatum to Robert Mugabe, and against mounting pressure for him to relinquish the office to which he was appointed irregularly and has been prosecuting incompetently.

Written by Zimbwa Hamunyari