Court raps Attorney-General’s Office

from the AG’s Office to use their discretion to drop their weak arguments whenever legally necessary to avoid wasting the courts’ time.
He was quashing the disciplinary proceedings that saw the dismissal of a Chinhoyi prosecutor Mr Douglas Shumbayaonda last year.
Mr Shumbayaonda was dismissed last year over a case in which he was accused of soliciting for US$500 bribe from a suspect at Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court.
He was acquitted of the criminal charges, but the employer dismissed him after an internal disciplinary hearing.
Through his lawyer, Advocate Thabani Mpofu, Mr Shumbayaonda successfully contested the disciplinary proceedings at the Labour Court.
Mr Kachambwa nullified the hearing and its findings before ordering a fresh hearing.
He said if the officers sent to represent the State in the courts are not allowed to use their discretion to concede or admit to certain clear points, only those with such authority should appear in courts.
“Looking at similar situations that we have seen in this court, I think it is important to observe that there is a serious problem that is creeping into the Attorney-General’s Office,” said Mr Kachambwa.
“Where counsel who is standing in court is faced with unchangeable argument, it is proper to make admissions or concessions to avoid burdening the court with rubble.
“It is dishonest and improper for counsel to pretend to make an argument knowing very well that the argument is untrue or that it has no basis at law.”
The judge said if law officers are not allowed to make concessions whenever necessary at law, only those authorised to use their discretion under such circumstances should appear in court.
“It makes a mockery of the profession for counsel to appear in court and yet be barred from applying their minds. The court is not a rubbish dump where parties come to dump their cases and leave the court to sift through the rubble for the answer,” he said.
Mr Kachambwa ordered the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs to start afresh the hearing of Mr Shumbayaonda citing some irregularities.
“The proceedings are hereby set aside. The respondent may rehear the case before another committee if it so wishes. Any rehearing should be completed and a decision of the outcome thereof to be done within 30 days of this judgment.
“Should the respondent fail to comply with the rehearing then the applicant shall be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits…”
The court heard the disciplinary committee denied Mr Shumbayaonda legal representation and turned down his application for postponement.
He also argued that the hearing was conducted out of time.