OPPOSITION activists Godfrey “Madzibaba veShanduko” Karembera, Jim Kunaka and Malcolm Masarira, who are facing a charge of incitement to public violence, have applied for discharge at the close of the State’s case.
The trio, represented by lawyer Paidamoyo Saurombe, is being charged with incitement to participate in a gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of peace or bigotry, as defined in section 187(1)(a), read together with section 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
They pleaded not guilty and denied being present at Machipisa in Highfield, Budiriro and Glen View, where the alleged offences took place. They also denied distributing flyers or inciting anyone to participate in a gathering intended to promote public violence.
The State led evidence from four witnesses before closing its case. In their application for discharge, the accused argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
They submitted that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable court, acting carefully, could properly convict them, arguing that the evidence presented by the State was so unreliable that no reasonable court could safely rely on it.
One of the State witnesses, Superintendent Edmore Runganga, testified that he saw flyers scattered at Machipisa shops but did not witness anyone distributing them or identify individuals involved.
Keep Reading
He further told the court that he saw a Toyota Aqua in Budiriro matching the description of a vehicle allegedly used to distribute the flyers. However, he said he could not identify the occupants of the vehicle.
According to Runganga, three people fled from the vehicle after it was intercepted, but because it was dark, he could not identify any of them.
He was unable to link any of the accused persons to those who allegedly fled from the vehicle.
The defence also argued that the testimonies of the other three State witnesses contained significant contradictions.
The court heard that one witness distanced himself from a statement he signed, claiming he was pressured into signing it in exchange for his release after spending several months in remand prison.
"After 5 months, he was asked to sign a statement by the police if he was to get his freedom. He did sign the statement and he was subsequently released and called as a witness. The State applied to declare the accused person hostile as his testimony had deviated from the statement he signed," the defence submitted.
Under cross-examination, the witness alleged that he was tortured following his arrest and, after enduring prolonged detention under harsh conditions, agreed to sign the statement. He said that explained the discrepancies between the statement and his testimony in court.
The witness maintained that he did not know any of the accused persons and could not place them at or near the alleged crime scene.
They defence submitted that the accused persons were not identified by any of the witnesses who testified, saying no single witness placed the accused persons at the crime scene.
They submitted that the prosecution's evidence and witnesses did not identify the people who were distributing flyers, saying without the identity of the persons who distributed the fliers, the prosecution’s case crumbles.
The State is yet to submit its response to the application for discharge.
Karembera has been in remand prison for more than a year while his accomplices were granted bail by the High Court.