admin
who has been in the eye of a storm over how he handled two cited cases and the initial bail hearing of lawyer Ms Beatrice Mtetwa.
LSZ president, Mr Lloyd Mhishi said their organisation was disturbed by the ‘onslaught’ on Justice Hungwe.
In one case, Justice Hungwe reportedly unprocedurally granted a notice of withdrawal in a house wrangle pitting Old Mutual chief executive, Mr Jonas Mushosho and a man who bought the latter’s property.
Mr Mushosho reportedly sold a residential stand in Bluff Hill, Harare to Lloyd Mudimu who built his house before the former turned the tables and sought to nullify the deal.
Justice Hungwe reportedly granted a notice of withdrawal after he was allegedly misled that Mudimu had dropped his lawsuit against Mushosho, when in fact the case was still pending.
In another case, Justice Hungwe failed to pass sentence on Jonathan Mutsinze whom he had convicted of murder and robbery after he lost the court record.
Mutsinze has spent 10 years in remand prison awaiting sentencing. Justice Hungwe also came under fire after he heard a bail application by Harare lawyer, Ms Beatrice Mtetwa at night and at his Darwendale farm.
But in a statement yesterday, Mr Mhishi alleged that the attack of Justice Hungwe did not fall within the permitted scope.
“The LSZ does not entertain the view that the judiciary and judicial actions are beyond scrutiny. We, however hold the view that any criticism of the judiciary should be measured, tempered, based on fact and law. Any attack on the judiciary should not be actuated by malice and calculated to bring the institution into disrepute,” said Mr Mhishi in a press statement.
RELATED
“Recent pronouncement by some columnist has been deliberate in their assault on the integrity of Justice Hungwe. The deliberate distortion of facts point to a mischevious intent.”
Asked by The Herald why his statement was silent on what should be done on Mutsinze who has been in remand prison, Mr Mhishi said the law provided for a due process for a judge who would have failed to perform in a manner expected of him.
“There is a process applicable to judges who do wrong things but the public must have respect for the judiciary,” he said.
Turning to the manner in which Justice Hungwe handled Ms Mtetwa’s bail application, Mr Mhishi said a court could sit anywhere like in a prison cell or hospital bed depending on the exigencies of the case
But political analyst, Professor Jonathan Moyo said there was everything wrong in the manner in which the judge handled Beatrice Mtetwa’s case. Mtetwa was facing allegations of obstructing the course of justice.
“The LSZ’s argument is nonsensical and absurd in the extreme because you can’t say if a judge sits in a bar or in a toilet that constitutes a court. While it is true that the venue of a court can be anywhere, that needs to be established in a procedural way in terms of the High Court rules. It is the same about the court hearing,” he said.
Prof Moyo said a judge should hear both parties before a determination is made.
In the Mtetwa case, he said, the police’s side was never heard neither were they aware that the court was being heard at the judge’s Darwendale farm at night.
“The judge gave bail within 24 hours of Mtetwa’s arrest when the police legally has the right to hold a suspect in those circumstances for 48 hours. Therefore the judge’s actions have to be condemned in the strongest terms and not at night but during the day,” he said.
It was shameful, he said, for the LSZ, to defend an individual, ignoring the human right violations being perpetrated against Mutsinze.
“Who is going to defend the defenseless man who is lanquishing in prison?” asked Prof Moyo.
He said Mr Mhishi was equally guilty of the same charges Justice Hungwe was facing.
Another legal expert said what Justice Hungwe did is not consistent with maintaining the confidence of the judiciary.
“I am outraged by what the learned judge did. How can he fail to properly apply his mind before making a determination?” queried the legal expert.
Several prominent lawyers interviewed by this newspaper were however reluctant to comment on the conduct of Justice Hungwe saying they had closely worked with him before.
Chairperson of the Department of Politics and Administration at the University of Zimbabwe, Dr Charity Manyeruke said what Justice Hungwe did raised more questions than answers.
She said it was important that if a judge has an interest in a case he or she should recuse himself or herself.
“If a judge has a political or social interest in a case he or she should recuse himself or herself in handling the case. In carrying out their duties they should not be negligent.
If they are found wanting or suspected to be negligent, surely an inquiry should be made but that should be done in a manner that upholds the independence and integrity of the judiciary,” said Dr Manyeruke.
At the height of the fast track land reform programme, said Dr Manyeruke, white judges left the bench because they did not agree with the agrarian reform.
Zanu (Ndonga) president, Mr Gondayi Vutuza bemoaned the failure by Justice Hungwe to expeditiously conclude the murder and robbery case that he had started.
“Justice delayed is justice denied. If a judge errs an inquiry should be instituted,” said Mr Vutuza.
One legal analyst who preferred anonymity castigated Justice Hungwe’s ‘shoddy’ approach in handling cases involving either litigants or accused persons.
“This erodes the confidence in the administration of justice particularly when it happens at the High Court, the most important court in the land. The judge is either tired, not interested or does not know what he is doing or unable to perform his duties,” said the legal analyst who could not be named for professional reasons.
Zimbabwe Union of Democrats leader, Mrs Margaret Dongo urged authorities to go to the bottom of the matter.
“There is a need for a thorough investigation before a conclusion is made,” said Mrs Dongo.
Bongani Ndlovu
Online Reporter