LAWYERS representing African Medical Investments boss Peter Annesley and two others facing $10 million fraud and robbery charges on Friday squared off with Harare lawyer Jonathan Samukange accusing him of attempting to influence the decision of the court after he allegedly proffered opinionated evidence.
PHILLIP CHIDAVAENZI
Samukange is a State witness in the matter.
Beatrice Mtetwa, who is representing Annesley and Mavis Mushonga, said it had to be clarified if the State, represented by prosecutor Michael Reza, had called Samukange to interpret evidence given by the other witnesses.
“It has to be made clear if the State has called Samukange as a lawyer to interpret the evidence led. He is seeking to usurp the functions of the court for the purposes of influencing the court,” she said before regional magistrate Clever Tsikwa.
Innocent Musimbe, who is the legal representative for the other accused person Paul Stevenson, constantly appealed to the magistrate to direct Samukange not to give opinions in his evidence, but to confine himself to what he saw.
Samukange, however, insisted that he was entitled to give his opinion because he was not just a witness, but a lawyer as well.
“My opinion carries weight because I am a professional,” he said.
- 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
He said he was certain Dr Vivek Solanki’s Stremleigh Investments owned the property at 15 Lanark Road, adding that he had documents that confirmed the ownership.
Samukange said he was not yet a director at the Trauma Centre when some monies were withdrawn from the company’s accounts, including the one at Stanbic Bank.
He, however, refused to respond to the question whether or not he saw the accused stealing money from the company as he was alleging.
He said he was appointed a director by Solanki in 2011 and insisted his appointment was procedural because Solanki had the power to do so and the appointment had never been challenged by anyone.
He said although only directors of the company could appoint other directors, that was only necessary when the company was functioning properly, but after the directors’ dismissal, the owner could use his discretion to appoint anyone.
He, however, said he was unaware of any board resolution to that effect and that would have been inconsequential since Solanki had dismissed the board.
Samukange said he bought 25% of the shares in the company, but said he did not have the share certificate and would not know the shareholding of the other directors off–hand.
At the close of the State case, the defence team indicated their intention to apply for discharge on the basis that the State had failed to proof a prima facie case against the accused persons.
Mtetwa and Musimbe indicated that they would submit written applications by September 27 and the State would respond by October 11 before ruling on November 1.
