Online Reporter
Zvikomborero Parafini
WALTER MAGAYA is now seeking to have his ongoing criminal trial referred to the Constitutional Court, arguing that his prosecution is unconstitutional and amounts to an abuse of the justice system.
In heads of arguments filed before Harare Regional Magistrate Francis Mapfumo on Friday, Magaya contends that the State’s decision to proceed with the matter, despite significant developments, violates his fundamental rights as protected under the Constitution.
Central to his argument is the claim that the prosecution has persisted even after one of the complainants formally withdrew allegations and communicated that position through legal representatives.
Through his lawyers, Mr Admire Rubaya and Mr Everson Chatambudza, he argues that continuing with the trial under such circumstances amounts to harassment and undermines the protection of the law guaranteed to every citizen.
The application further asserts that the conduct of the prosecution compromises the integrity of the judicial process and results in the arbitrary deprivation of his liberty.
Magaya maintains that the cumulative effect of these actions renders the proceedings unlawful and unconstitutional.
He also raises concerns about the handling of evidence, particularly in relation to another complainant.
According to the application, prosecutors allegedly amended a witness statement but failed to disclose both the original and amended versions to the defence.
Magaya argues that this conduct violates his right to a fair trial and denies him the opportunity to adequately prepare his defence.
The issue of DNA evidence also features prominently in the application.
Magaya argues that although the evidence was obtained through a court order, the results have not been disclosed to him.
If the referral is granted, the Constitutional Court will determine whether the conduct of the prosecution is consistent with constitutional protections.
The State, represented by Mr Clemence Chimbare, is opposed to the application and is set to file their response next week.
The matter was remanded to May 15 for ruling.
