By Staff Reporter
High Court Judge Justice Munamato Mutevedzi has reserved a ruling on the bail appeal by 78 opposition members who were arrested on June 16 on allegations of unlawful gathering.
He said the judgement should be ready by July 18.
The suspects who include Senator Jameson Timba, the Citizens Coalition For Change interim leader are also being accused of disorderly conduct.
The judge reserved his judgment after hearing arguments from both parties.
Representing the appellants, Jeremiah Bamu argued that the lower court erred in failing to distinguish the personal circumstances of all appellants.
โThe court a quo should have given reasons for distinguishing accused 1 from other appellants.
โAccused 1 (Timba) is not liable for the offence only because people had gathered at his house.
โThat did not make him part of the gathering and the court a quo ought to have distinguished his circumstances from that of the other accused,โ Bamu submitted.
Bamu also said another suspect, Lucia Antonio (appellant 58) is just a tenant at Timbaโs residence.
โIt is clear that the appellants werenโt arrested at the same place but two different places and the evidence of the IO was that the police did not ascertain the purpose of the gathering.
โThere is no strong case in particular to the charge they are facing.
โAccording to the IO, not everyone who was part of the gathering threw stones at the police.
โThe individual role of each appellant ought to have been ascertained. What happened was a dragnet arrest, some appellants are languishing in Remand Prison for an offence they did not commit,โ the lawyer argued.
He also said the 40th appellant is disabled, he has an artificial leg, hence his circumstances were not considered.
โIf they had been considered, the court a quo would have been more lenient.
โThe 4th appellant, Tambudzai sustained a broken leg, there was no justification for denying her bail given her circumstances.
Another lawyer Webster Jiti concurred and submitted that it is a misdirection to deny an appellant bail when there are no indications that they will skip bail.
โPolice officers will testify and these witnesses are not known to the appellants hence they pose no threats to the investigations.
โNone has shown he/she has the capacity to interfere with investigations or witnesses.
โCourt a quo made an error at law of concluding that the appellants were likely to re-offend.
โThat they will team up with accomplicesโฆwe were not told who are these accomplices.
โThe law is very clear, where the State alleges that there is an accomplice, the accomplice should be known to the accused persons,โ he said.
Jiti said no evidence of the police who were pelted by stones was presented before the court, not even their names or medical affidavit.
โEvidence before the court is rather contrary. The appellants were brutalized to the extent that some were hospitalised.
All the accused to have been granted bail because their coaccused Sean Timba was granted bail despite that he is facing a serious offence.
In response, Charles Muchemwa representing the state said there was no misdirection by the lower court.
โThe evidence before the court shows that this offence was committed in aggravating circumstances and there is a likelihood of a conviction. This might induce the appellants to abscond. It is therefore my humble submission that the appeal be dismissed.
โOn accused 40, His disability cannot be an excuse. He travelled all the way from Chitungwiza to commit this offence although he is disabled. He should not have been part of this group if his condition was to be considered in the first place,โ he said.
โThe appellants were properly arrested and denied bail. We move this court to dismiss the appeal.โ
Mutevedzi then reserved his judgement.
โThis is an appeal and should not take me time to hand down the ruling. So the registrar will call you when my judgement is ready. It should be sooner and no later than Thursday.โ
