Online Reporter
Zvikomborero Parafini-Court Reporter
PROPHETIC Healing and Deliverance Ministries leader Walter Magaya yesterday expressed his apprehension about standing trial in a victim-friendly court due to concerns over the facility’s infrastructure.
He made the remarks while on the witness stand as his lawyers led him in support of an application for referral to the Constitutional Court.
Magaya said he fears the trial will be unfair if it takes place in the current conditions.
After being shown the court’s setup by presiding magistrate Mrs Estere Chivasa, Magaya shared his impressions of the inadequate equipment.
“From what I saw in the VFC (victim friendly court), the magistrate won’t have a clear view of the TV and won’t see the demeanour of the witnesses.
“The television is small and black and white. I am now more scared than I was before. That place won’t give me a fair trial at all.”
Magaya recounted his experience in remand prison, where he had used virtual court services.
“The sound was inaudible, the vision wasn’t clear. If that happens during my trial, I would be doomed,” he said.
Magaya said the investigations leading to his arrest were in the public domain until he received a sudden call for private prosecution.
“The term ‘private’ means the terms of prosecution, the size of the room, the television, and the conditions may not allow us to get to the truth.
“A live court is entirely different from a television; it’s like the difference between watching a football match live and on TV,” he said.
He also criticised the court’s decision to hold the trial in a facility designed for vulnerable individuals.
“The court ought to have interviewed the witnesses to establish if they were indeed vulnerable before ordering that the trial be held in the Victim Friendly Court, which from what I saw, is meant for infants and kids.”
In a twist of events, a legal standoff arose between the presiding magistrate and the lawyers regarding the interpretation of Constitutional Court rules.
After leading Magaya and filing their papers, the State, represented by Mr Clemence Chimbari, announced that they would only file written arguments without presenting a witness, a move the defence labelled as unlawful.
Defence attorney, Mr Admire Rubaya argued that the Constitutional Court requires both parties to present evidence.
However, magistrate Mrs Chivasa sided with the State, stating that the rules apply only to the apex court and not to lower courts.
This interpretation faced staunch opposition from the defence, which contended that ignoring established protocols could lead to legal disasters.
The matter was remanded to March 2 for oral arguments.
