LAWYERS representing three Mthwakazi Liberation Front (MLF) top officials facing treason say they expect the High Court to deliver its judgment soon as further delays will be unfair to their clients. Senior Court Reporter
The three officials — Paul Siwela (49), Charles Thomas (44) and John Gazi (54) were arrested in March 2011 and charged with treason after they allegedly plotted to overthrow the government. However, all three denied the charges.
In an interview yesterday, advocate Lucas Nkomo, representing Siwela and Thomas, said he expected High Court judge Justice Nicholas Ndou to deliver judgment this term.
The new High Court term opened yesterday.
“We are looking forward to the judgment this term from the trial judge,” Nkomo said.
“We were expecting it at the end of 2012, but Justice Ndou was not there. Our limitations are that we can’t call upon the judge to deliver the judgment. Mostly, what lawyers do is to wait on the judge to advise on the delivery of the judgment.
“Obviously something will be done because it will be an undue delay on the part of the judge to exceed this term.”
In October 31 last year, Justice Ndou indefinitely reserved judgment in the application for discharge by Gazi’s lawyer advocate Sabelo Sibanda.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The three were arrested in March 2011 and charged with distributing flyers bearing the logo of MLF — a pressure group-cum-political party — agitating for Egyptian-style uprisings against President Robert Mugabe’s government.
Their lawyers applied for discharge at the close of the State case, arguing that prosecutors Lovack Masuku and Samuel Pedzisai had failed to prove their clients had a case to answer.
Nkomo argued that the court was obliged to return a “not guilty” verdict since the prosecutors had failed to present evidence on which a “reasonable court” could convict them.
He said the evidence of State witnesses was only centred on the arrest of the three items recovered during the arrest and messages on some of the items that were recovered.
But prosecutors insisted that the essential elements of the offence had been proved adding that there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable court, acting carefully, might properly convict.
