adminmatter pending determination.
While Mr Newman Chiadzwa’s application for the release of the 8,6kg diamonds taken from him as exhibit was pending, an officer from the AG’s Office wrote to the presiding judge Justice Francis Bere expressing the office’s interest and opposing the application.
In the application, Mr Chiadzwa had decided to leave out the AG as a respondent and opted to cite the police.
It was indicated in the letter that the AG’s Office had an interest in the matter and that Chiadzwa did not deserve to have the diamonds back.
The letter indicated that the AG ought to have been cited as a respondent in the application and it criticised the manner in which Mr Chiadzwa was acquitted.
According to the same letter, the court heard that the State had since filed an application for rescission of the judgment that facilitated his freedom.
Mr Chiadzwa was jailed five years and fined US$132 000 for possessing the said diamonds last year, but was acquitted by the High Court in June.
After his acquittal, he filed a claim for the diamonds, which Justice Bere dismissed last week. Although Mr Chiadzwa’s bid failed Justice Bere said the AG’s Office had acted unprofessionally by writing to him over a matter that was already before the court. Justice Bere took a swipe at the conduct of the State saying, although the letter did not influence him in any way, it was unprofessional and unethical.
Justice Bere described the conduct of the State as a “desperate attempt to influence the decision of the court by addressing the court through the back door”.
“I am extremely concerned with the approach adopted by the Attorney General’s Office in its effort to register its concerns or position in this matter.
“In my view, once a matter is placed before the court, where the other party by its inaction has been barred, there can be no direct communication with the presiding judge.
“Doing so would be an attempt to influence the decision of the court using unorthodox and unprofessional means. The AG’s Office’s approach was a desperate attempt to influence the decision of the court by addressing it through the back door.
“It is both unprofessional and unethical to do so,” he said.
Justice Bere said the AG’s Office could have simply filed an application to be part of the proceedings instead of writing a letter to the judge.
“If the AG felt the applicant had unfairly treated its office or that the office had an interest in this matter, the proper cause of action would have been to formerly apply for jointer in these proceedings to create a proper platform for the office to be heard,” he said.
However, the judge said the letter did not influence his decision in any way.
Although the decision was the one the AG’s Office was craving for, the judge said he did not allow the letter to influence his objective determination of the matter.
Online Reporter