High court to decide on seized cellphones
MB A B A N E – I t i s n o w the High Court that will decide whether Hosea MP Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and his Ngwempisi counterpart, MP Mthandeni Dube get t heir cellphones back in the event they are released on bail.
This is so because the High Court has now been called upon to review the decision of the magistrate who issued the order to seize the cellphones belonging to the two legislators. The order was granted on Monday by Acting Senior Mbabane Magistrate Sifiso Vilakati.
The seized cellphones are a black Samsung Galaxy S8+ and a black Huawei. The application to seize the cellphones was filed by Detective Constable Sizwe Mazibuko in terms of Section 52( 1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act ( CP& E), 1938. statements were recorded with people from Hosea and Ngwempisi had been recorded.
He said the Crown only made general statements that were not substantiated. “They are asking too much from the court. Nothing controverts the accused per
According to Mazibuko, the cellphones were seized for further investigations.
“It is hereby ordered that the items be kept at Mbabane Police Station for onward transmission to forensic laboratory for further analysis until such time that they have been dealt with according to Section 5 of this ( CP& E) Act,” reads the detention order.
APPEAL
However, the MPs have filed a notice of appeal of the decision of Magistrate Vilakati. Mabuza and Dube are represented by Mduduzi ‘ Tsotsi’ Mabila under the instruction of Sifiso Jele of SM Jele Attorneys.
The accused persons were not satisfied with the order of the court. Their grounds of appeal are that the magistrate erred in fact and law by issuing the order in a matter where it ( magistrates sons’ submissions in their bail application,” said Mabila.
The Crown submitted in its papers that it had evidence in the form of videos and recordings to prove that the two committed the offences and that its case was watertight against the MPs. court) lacked jurisdiction.
They argued that it was the High Court that had jurisdiction to entertain matters involving the Suppression of Terrorism Act No. 3 of 2008 as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act.
Mabuza and Dube also argued that the magistrate erred both in fact and law by issuing an order incidental and/ or ancillary and/ or interlocutory to a matter pending before the High Court.
They further pointed out that the magistrate ought to have recused himself in respect of Mabuza as it was common cause that he recused himself in a matter involving the Hosea MP under Criminal Case No. 465/ 2020, stating that he was conflicted. The appeal was filed yesterday at the High Court and it is yet to be heard.
However, Mabila noted that bail hearings had been turned into trials. He said the strength of the case of the State was immaterial. He argued that the determining factors in bail were interest of justice to grant an accused person bail, an enquiry