Tomana’s request lacks merit — JSC

Johannes Tomana

Johannes Tomana

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
The country’s Constitution does not provide for the appointment of ad-hoc judges to hear particular cases and that the request by Prosecutor General Johannes Tomana for a foreign-based or a retired judge to hear his single High Court interdict application must be dismissed, the Judicial Service Commission has said.

Tomana, who recently filed an urgent chamber application at the High Court to stop JSC from continuing with the process leading to his possible removal from office, wants that challenge to be heard by a retired High Court judge or a foreign-based judge.

He has filed another chamber application at the High Court to have the issue of a foreign or retired judge referred to the Constitutional Court for determination.

Responding to the chamber application for referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court, JSC’s lawyer Mr Addington Chinake argued that the law only provides for the appointment of judges for a period of up to 12 months in cases of shortage but does not provide for an ad-hoc appointment of judges to deal with a specific single case.

“In any event, there is no section of the Constitution, which provides for the ad-hoc judicial appointments, even where a person meets the qualifications of appointment as a judge, which is the relief ultimately sought by Mr Tomana in this instance,” argued Mr Chinake.

The JSC indicated that Tomana could have wrongly interpreted the law in arriving at a decision of requesting for a judge to deal with his single case only.

The commission said such a request was alien to the Constitution and that it had never happened in the history of this country’s judiciary. “There is no history of a non-sitting judge being appointed to the High Court for the specific reason of hearing only a single matter. The precedence which the applicant may be relying on, however, is the tribunal appointed by the President in February 2004, in terms of Section 87(3) of the old constitution, to determine the question of whether the former judge Benjamin Paradza ought to be removed from office.

“However, it should be emphasised, none of the foreign judges were ever appointed to hold judicial office in Zimbabwe,” JSC argued.

The commission urged the High Court to dismiss the chamber application with costs.

“Having started this matter on an urgent basis, the only logical outcome is the dismissal of the application with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale,” read the heads of argument.

The JSC said even the President, being an appointing authority for all judges, the same judges without fear or favour professionally handle many cases where the President sues or is sued.

“The President thus clearly plays a definitive role in the appointment of judges. Notwithstanding this role, cases are brought before the courts for and against the President in his official capacity.

“There is no indication that the central role of the President in the appointment of judges has led to any bias in favour of, or against, the President in matters brought before the courts. In the same vein, it is highly fanciful to aver that a judge of the High court will not be partial in a matter involving the JSC and indirectly the Chief Justice of the Republic,” argued the JSC.

The JSC argued that Tomana’s application lacks merit and that it was premised on baseless and unsubstantiated belief that the judges will not be impartial enough in dealing with his case.

“The application is without merit as it merely constitutes a back-door, wholesale application for the recusal of Honourable Justice Makoni, and, indeed all currently sitting judges of the High Court because of an unreasonable questioning of the impartiality of the judges of the High Court.

“No averments have been proffered by the applicant to show why no judge can be impartial in the circumstances, no benefit may be drawn by the honourable judge if she makes a decision in favour of JSC nor are there any possible repercussions to be suffered if a decision against the JSC is made,” the JSC argued.

Oral arguments will be placed before the judge on April 5 this year.

Tomana faces possible removal from office due to non-compliance with court orders.

Tomana, who is facing criminal charges at the Harare Magistrates’ Courts’ involving Gushungo Dairy bombing, was in October last year slapped with a 30-day term of imprisonment for contempt of court after he defied court orders to issue certificates for the private prosecution of Bikita West legislator Munyaradzi Kereke and Telecel shareholder Jane Mutasa.

Kereke was accused of raping an 11-year-old relative, while Mutasa was facing charges of swindling the company of airtime recharge cards worth millions of dollars.

Tomana was fined by a nine-member judges’ panel of the Constitutional Court led by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku.

The sentence was, however, wholly set-aside on condition that he complied with the court orders and issue private prosecution certificates to Mr Francis Maramwidze and Telecel, failure of which he would be barred from practising as a lawyer in Zimbabwe.

Pin It
  • froggy

    One can easy tell this is political.

    • Chikomana

      political or not bblazi avangasiye basa zvavo varonge yehu mp 2018 vokumbira ruregerero kune vanenyanga mhuri yorarama. Kana ane sentance though suspended he is not fit at all fullstop

  • dzamara

    Here is a case tried by a retired magistrate.so to say it has never happened before in this country is false.
    i wouldnt want that guy as my lawyer because he is clearly stupid

    Chinamasa not off the hook yet

    March 11, 2005 in Politics

    Clemence Manyukwe

    JUSTICE minister Patrick Chinamasa is yet to get out of trouble as it
    emerged this week that the Attorney-General’s office is considering
    appealing against his acquittal on charges of attempting to defeat the
    course of justice.

    Sour

    ces at the AG’s office yesterday said they were scrutinising a judgement
    exonerating Chinamasa arrived at by retired magistrate Phenias
    Chipopoteke.

    In his judgement Chipopoteke said the state had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

    The
    state, led by Levison Chikafu, had said Chinamasa approached a key
    state witness James Kaunye and pressurised him to withdraw public
    violence charges faced by National Security minister Didymus Mutasa’s
    supporters.

    Kaunye, a war veteran who was attacked for
    challenging Mutasa in Zanu PF Makoni North primary elections in 2004,
    went on to become the state’s key witness in Chinamasa’s trial.

    Chinamasa
    mounted a political defence saying he was “caught in a crossfire” in a
    battle which he described in court as a “take-take, which in military
    terms means hand-to-hand combat using bayonets” between Kaunye and
    Mutasa.

    The magistrate said Kaunye’s version of the story could
    not be relied on saying at times he was evasive and answered questions
    by firing questions at the defence team. He ruled that Kaunye was being
    treated as a single witness as no other person had heard Chinamasa
    persuading him to drop the charges. Under such circumstances the law
    stipulated that evidence from one witness had to be treated with
    caution.

    During the trial, Chikafu said Mutasa would soon be
    taken to court to answer charges of public violence that resulted in 16
    of his supporters being jailed for three years.

    At one time
    Chinamasa’s prosecution suffered a setback when magistrates refused to
    try the Justice minister saying they had been intimidated by Mutasa.

    The
    minister has since denied the allegations and threatened to sue Rusape
    magistrate Loice Mukunyadzi who made the damning claim in an open court.