... State sees no urgency in bail application

MBABANE – The State does not see any urgency in the bail application that has been filed by Members of Parliament (MPs) Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube in the Supreme Court.

Principal Crown Counsel Ncamsile Masuku pointed out that Mabuza and Dube were denied bail on August 6, 2021, but elected to wait until now.

She told the Supreme Court that the grounds of urgency alleged by the MPs in their recent bail application were self-created.

“The applicants (Mabuza and Dube) were both denied bail in terms of law provisions governing the granting of bail and they chose not to appeal the decision on time, but elected to resubmit a second bail application before the High Court, under the pretext that there were new facts,” submitted Masuku.

URGENCY

She further contended that the fact that the applicants were MPs was not a recognised ground of urgency.

Masuku further alleged that the contents of the certificate of urgency were seeking to cure the defects that were in their first bail application as observed by the High Court when dismissing the first application.

“The contents of the certificate of urgency are seeking to raise defence against the charges faced by the applicants and as such they are bringing the defence that was lacking in the first bail application before an appeal court through the back door,” contended the principal Crown counsel.

DISCOURAGE

Masuku implored the Supreme Court to discourage such attempt as it amounts to abuse of court process.

She also dismissed the assertion by the applicants that

the Crown would not be prejudiced by their release from custody. Masuku insisted that in the event the two MPs were released on bail, they would abscond trial and endanger the safety of the public.

According to Masuku, Mabuza and Dube were lawfully incarcerated in terms of laws governing bail.

In conclusion, she told the Supreme Court that the contents of statement of witnesses and electronic evidence that had been supplied to the applicants established a case against them.

“May I state that the applicants have since been supplied with electronic evidence implicating them to the charges they are facing,” contended Masuku.