Zimpapers Logo

Prosper Dembedza-Herald Correspondent 

The assault trial of Tendai Biti continued yesterday with Mrs Tatiana Aleshina who is the complainant testifying under cross examination.

Biti is facing charges of assaulting the businesswoman and investor Mrs Aleshina at the Magistrates Court in 2020.

Before the trial  kicked off,  Biti’s lawyer Alec Muchadehama tried to file another court application to stay the proceedings saying the magistrate should first deliver her ruling on an pending application for referral to the Constitutional Court.

Mr Muchadehama had filed an application of referral to the ConCourt just after the dismissal of another application for referral to the same court.

Deputy Prosecutor General Mr Michael Reza opposed the application saying he should file a review of that application as the lower court magistrate cannot review her ruling.

But Mr Muchadehama insisted on the application for referral and magistrate Vongai Muchuchuti-Guwuriro gave in and allowed him to file a written application saying the trial will however proceed.

The trial proceeded with Mrs Aleshina leading evidence for the State.

The defence then filed the referral to ConCourt application in the middle of the trial and the State opposed the application.

However, yesterday Mr Muchadehama demanded the ruling of that application for referral first before the trial could start.

This was opposed by the State which claimed it was a delaying tactic to complete the case.

Mr Muchadehama then filed an application to stay the proceedings but Mr Reza again opposed saying the trial should continue while they wait for the ruling of their application for referral.

Magistrate Muchuchuti-Guwuriro then dismissed the application to have the trial stayed saying the matter should proceed.

Mr Muchadehama then started cross examining the complainant.

The lawyer asked Mrs Aleshina several questions relating to their company Augur Investments, Doorex, Sunshine among others but she responded that she cannot answer the questions since she did not have authority to speak on behalf of those companies.

“You indicated last time that you know nothing about Augur Investments,” Mr Muchadehama asked.

“l had no authority to talk about Augur Investments. I am only here for an assault case,” Mrs Aleshina responded.

“Do you know Sekesai Makwavarara, the one whom you met in 2006 at a Christmas event,” Mr Muchadehama asked.

“I don’t remember anything since it’s 2006. I met a lot of people in 2006 up to now,” she replied.

Mr Muchadehama tried to ask Mrs Aleshina on documents he said she wrote to ZACC and the High Court but the State opposed the submissions of the documents saying they were not commissioned and that the contents were irrelevant to the case of assault.

“There is need to rely on certified documents for the purposes of trial and the documents which are not certified are not relevant documents,” magistrate Muchuchuti-Guwuriro said.

Mr Muchadehama kept on pressing Mrs Aleshina asking if she knew certain people she met in 2006. 

“I introduced a lot of investors in this country but l don’t remember the happenings of 2006. I am totally confused when you ask about Augur Investments because l don’t have authority to talk about Augur. If Augur had given me authority to represent them l would have done so but in this case l cannot talk about Augur,” Mrs Aleshina said.

Mr Reza however objected to some line of questioning saying they are irrelevant questions.

“Since the start of this trial the defence has not asked any questions relating to the assault case and no questions has been asked in relation to the assault case,” Mr Reza said.

The trial was deferred to Tuesday next week.