To­mana puts up spir­ited fight

Chronicle (Zimbabwe) - - Na­tional News -

The charges arose at the time he was AG and he has since chal­lenged the va­lid­ity of the pro­cess un­der­way.

The mat­ter is still pend­ing at the apex court. “This has not stopped this pro­cess from pro­ceed­ing. When this con­text is con­sid­ered, it is con­sti­tu­tion­ally im­per­mis­si­ble for the tri­bunal to go through this pro­cess,” said Mr To­mana.

In his de­fence, Mr To­mana seeks to rely on Sec­tion 69 of the Con­sti­tu­tion of Zim­babwe, which pro­vides that every per­son “is en­ti­tled to a fair hear­ing within a rea­son­able pe­riod of time”.

“The fact that the rais­ing of these charges im­pli­cates breach of the fair trial guar­an­tee ren­ders the in­quiry into these mat­ters un­con­sti­tu­tional and there­fore in­valid,” he ar­gued. “The tri­bunal should hold that it has lost the con­sti­tu­tional man­date to in­quire into these stale and pre­scribed claims. It is fur­ther as­serted that the tri­bunal’s right to pro­ceed is pre­scribed.”

Mr To­mana also ar­gues that there was no rea­son not to charge him of the al­leged mis­con­ducts at the time they al­legedly hap­pened. “There has been no change in the govern­ment of Zim­babwe. There has been no change in her con­sti­tu­tional frame­work and statu­tory laws,” he said.

“The forces that are be­hind the ac­ti­va­tion of this pro­cess have been in ex­is­tence as at the re­spec­tive dates of the con­duct now im­pugned. Noth­ing stopped those forces from ac­ti­vat­ing this pro­cess ear­lier.”

Mr To­mana sought to ex­plain the cir­cum­stances un­der which all the cases in which he is be­ing probed were dealt with. On de­fy­ing court or­ders, Mr To­mana ar­gues that he com­plied with the or­ders is­sued by the court in Maramwidze and Tele­cel cases. He said de­spite his com­pli­ance with those or­ders, Tele­cel had not in­sti­tuted any pri­vate pros­e­cu­tion. In the Maramwidze mat­ter, Mr To­mana con­tends that although a pros­e­cu­tion had been con­ducted and a con­vic­tion se­cured, the ac­cused per­son, Mun­yaradzi Kereke, had been ac­quit­ted on one of the two charges. “As re­gards the charge on which he was con­victed, re­spon­dent ob­serves that a no­tice of ap­peal has been filed,” he ar­gues.

“Re­spon­dent con­se­quently draws at­ten­tion to the ef­fect of the ap­peal on the charges now brought and will urge in favour thereof should oc­ca­sion arise.” He de­nied that he was party to the pro­ceed­ings in the Nher­era-Shah mat­ter. Mr To­mana ar­gued that when two arms of Govern­ment are not agreed on a crit­i­cal con­sti­tu­tional is­sue and are not agreed for good rea­sons, it is un­ac­cept­able for the other arm to use its might in a man­ner that forces the is­sue.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe

© PressReader. All rights reserved.