Govt defends PG over petty Namibia conviction
ATTORNEY General Advocate Prince Machaya has defended the appointment of Adv Ray Goba as Acting Prosecutor-General, saying his previous conviction in Namibia was petty and does not warrant his removal from office.
Adv Goba was found guilty of attempting to defeat the course of justice in Namibia when he was Deputy Government Attorney for that country years back.
He was fined N$2 000 or imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence.
The High Court of Namibia confirmed his conviction and an attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court failed after his application for leave to appeal was thrown out.
On behalf of Adv Machaya who was out of the country on business, Deputy AG in charge of Legal Drafting, Mr Nelson Dias said the appointment of Adv Goba was above board and any attempts by critics to sue the Government was a waste of time and resources.
Mr Dias stated Government’s position on the issue while responding to a letter by Mtetwa and Nyambirai Legal Practitioners that was written on behalf of a client Mr Majoni Utete.
The lawyers sought the position of the AG and the Judicial Service Commission on the constitutionality of the Acting PG’s post.
The lawyers argued that Adv Goba has a criminal record that disqualifies him from holding the esteemed position.
It was also argued that the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not provide for the appointment of an Acting PG.
The lawyers threatened to take Government to court over the appointment that they viewed as unconstitutional.
Mr Dias indicated that Adv Goba’s conviction was not of a serious nature and that it does not affect him professionally.
“As to Mr Utete’s worries about Mr Goba’s conviction in Namibia, please inform him that the conviction was not regarded in Namibia as being serious enough to justify his removal from office as Deputy Government Attorney for Namibia.
“In any event, it is on record that after the incident, he was promoted to the post of Acting Government Attorney of Namibia and then as Director of Legal Services and International Affairs,” said Mr Dias.
Mr Dias indicated in his response that as long as Mr Johannes Tomana was on suspension, no other substantive PG can be appointed.
“You are also reminded that the appointment of Acting PG and of the tribunal to enquire into Mr Tomana’s conduct was done simultaneously.
“If Mr Tomana is absolved by the tribunal, he remains as PG; if not, a vacancy will arise automatically, in which event Section 180 of the Constitution will have to be activated immediately. It is absurd for Mr Utete to fear that the appointing authority will compromise the PG’s position by relying on acting appointment of a long duration. In any event, the tribunal has a strict time frame within which to discharge its tasks,” reads the response.
Contrary to Mr Utete’s claims, the AG’s Office said Section 340 of the supreme law provides for the appointment of an Acting PG in the event of a suspension.
“You are wrong to say that the Constitution simply makes no provision for an Acting Prosecutor General.
“The Constitution contemplates the suspension of the Prosecutor General from office (see Section 340(1) (f) and the appointment of a person to act in his or her place see (see Section 340(1) (c) ),” reads the letter.
Mr Dias said suing the Government over the appointment was a futile exercise.
“Should Mr Utete persist in his intentions, our office would like to verify his standing in this matter as a concerned citizen. In particular, we need to know his passport details, his residence status and whether or not he is registered in the voter’s roll and details of said registration.
“We urge you, however, to calm Mr Utete’s fears and ask him to refrain from wasting his time and money on this needless litigation,” said Mr Dias.