Online Reporter
Nyore Madzianike-Senior Reporter
THE High Court Justice Gibson Mandaza will tomorrow deliver judgment ton the bail appeal of Tapiwa Felix Chikondo, bodyguard to leader of Prophetic Healing and Deliverance Ministries Walter Magaya.
Chikondo was arrested on December 3 and charged with obstructing justice after allegedly interfering with police efforts to arrest his employer. His initial bail application was denied on December 5.
Chikondo later filed a second bail request on January 5, citing changed circumstances, but the Magistrates Court dismissed this application as well, prompting him to appeal to the High Court.
In his application, prepared by his lawyer, Mr Malvern Mapako, Chikondo argued that the lower court erred in denying him bail based on changed circumstances, particularly after he was acquitted of the charge that the State used to oppose his release.
But the State has been arguing that there was also evidence of interfering with witnesses and that had denied him bail in the first place as well.
In its initial ruling, the magistrate’s court heavily relied on the fact that Chikondo had a propensity to commit further offences, he said.
In a bid to justify its findings, the court relied solely on the fact that Chikondo had a pending case awaiting trial.
He was then tried and acquitted of that pending offence and that, argued his lawyer, “clearly constitutes changed circumstances that warrant the court to revisit its own decision”.
The magistrate’s court had erred in continuously relying on speculation when in actual fact Chikondo had been lawfully acquitted. He also maintained that he had been wrongly accused.
The State, represented by Ms Paida Gutu, opposed the bail appeal, arguing that the lower court correctly determined that there was strong evidence of witness interference.
“With these facts at hand, the lower court ruled that the risk of interference was very high. The factors as listed in section 117 (3) (c) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act were established by the respondent.
“It, thus, cannot be said that when the learned magistrate made factual findings on the risk of interference, she misdirected herself.
“Furthermore, the appellant was also denied bail on the basis that he had a propensity to commit similar offences,” she said.
Ms Gutu further argued that Chikondo allegedly committed the offence while on bail for other charges.
“Thus, it is submitted that the fact that the appellant was out on bail on another matter of a similar nature operated against him and as such, the lower court was not misdirected when it denied him bail on this basis,” she said.
