Court dismisses State’s application to summon judge

HARARE regional magistrate Feresi Chakanyuka has dismissed an application by the State to summon High Court judge Justice Sylvia Chirau Mugomba to testify in the ongoing fraud case involving Ivy Kombo and her husband Admire Kasi.

The couple is being accused of fraudulently acquiring conversion certificates for practising law in Zimbabwe.

They are being jointly charged with the suspended Council for Legal Education (CLE) boss Hardwork Huggins Duri.

Justice Mugomba is the CLE chairperson and is alleged to have authored a letter authorising the couple to be exempted from writing the conversion examinations which consists of eight subjects.

The State has so far summoned several witnesses to testify on the matter but Justice Mugomba was not on the list of witnesses.

In her ruling, Chakanyuka said the State's application was not acceptable.

“According to Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, it is the court that has the mandate to call the witness it so specifies at anytime.

“The statute should be given its ordinary meaning, consistent with the provision when read in whole. As such words must be taken in their context and it is the duty of this court to interpret the statute in this instance,” she said.

Chakanyuka said Section 232 referred to the court calling the witness, a court is an agency charged with judicial authority but the State cannot armtwist the court to call the High Court judge.

The State through prosecutors Tafara Chirambira and Anesu Chirenje sought postponement of the matter to May 23 for trial continuation.

They also indicated that they want to go through the ruling and make necessary considerations.

The State contended that the testimony by the judge would provide justice to the case if indeed she confirmed the exemption of Kasi and Kombo, the State's allegations would tumble immediately.

However, defence counsels Admire Rubaya, Everson Chatambudza and Tamutsa Muzana objected to the application on the basis that it was unfair and was tantamount to persecution.

They also contended that the law does not allow an investigation and the prosecution of the same case to run concurrently hence the court should not treat the State as the cousin of the court.