Zimpapers Logo

Justice Charles Hungwe

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Reporter—
Jonathan Mutsinze, who has been languishing in remand prison for 11 years allegedly awaiting sentence on murder and robbery charges, yesterday said he was never convicted and challenged Justice Charles Hungwe to prove that he found him guilty. In a supplementary affidavit filed at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday in response to Justice Hungwe’s statement explaining the delay in finalisation of the matter, Mutsinze challenged the judge to prove that he had ever been convicted and that he was involved in the alleged disappearance of the court record.

Mutsinze was convicted of murdering a police officer and a security guard and robbery in 2003, but Justice Hungwe never sentenced him because the record of court proceedings disappeared.

Mutsinze last year challenged his continued placement on remand, prompting the Constitutional Court yesterday to give the registrar of the High Court one month to reconstruct a new court record.

Mutsinze, represented by lawyer Mr Tazorora Musarurwa, wants a permanent stay of prosecution.
Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku, sitting with eight other judges, issued the order for reconstruction of the record after Mutsinze filed the supplementary affidavit denying ever being convicted.

“This matter is further postponed sine die (to an indefinite date) to enable the registrar of the High Court to reconstruct the record in this matter with the assistance of all the parties within 30 days,” he said.

“Thereafter, the matter will be set down.”
In the supplementary affidavit, Mutsinze said: “It is not correct that I was convicted of murder and armed robbery. There is no proof to this and the honourable judge has proffered none.

“If indeed I had been convicted, there certainly must be a document somewhere not withstanding the missing records.”
Mutsinze dismissed as false insinuations by Justice Hungwe that he had a hand in the disappearance of the record and erasure of tapes.

“How I can manipulate registry staff, including the honourable judge’s own clerk while I am behind bars can only be a figment of imagination,” he said. “It is not true that I caused the disappearance of these records and I, therefore, vehemently deny this allegation.

This is shockingly unbelievable and the honourable judge is challenged to produce the so-called ‘credible evidence’ which shows that I caused or participated in the disappearance of these court records.”

Mutsinze believes that Justice Hungwe failed to properly handle the case and now wants to shift the blame on him.
In the State’s additional heads of argument filed on Monday at the Constitutional Court by chief law officer Mr Chris Mutangadura of the National Prosecuting Authority, the registrar of the High Court did not fully comply with the court order to explain the delay and to tell if it was still possible for the record to be reconstructed.

“It is submitted that the latest order of this court has not been fully complied with by the registrar of the High Court,” he said.
“The registrar has simply given scanty information, which actually prolongs the resolution of this important matter. The stage at which the record has been reconstructed is not clearly and unequivocally stated.

“By mentioning that the record includes documents, which we all know are obviously available in the form of State papers and the defence outline does not resemble any attempt by the registrar to reconstruct the record although there is an indication that the documents available do form part of the record.”

Mr Mutangadura, on behalf of the State, admitted that the delay in sentencing Mutsinze was indeed a violation of his rights.
“The State will, therefore, not oppose the declaration that the delay by the trial court in passing sentence was a violation of the accused person’s right to a fair trial and protection of the law,” he said.

Mr Mutangadura said the State was opposed to the relief of permanent stay of prosecution on the basis that prosecution had already been completed.