Zimpapers Logo

Chief Court Reporter
SUSPENDED judge, Justice Francis Bere, had his bid to block a tribunal inquiring into his fitness to hold office, after a lawyer accused him of interference in a civil case, ruled as non-urgent by the High Court, meaning the tribunal will probably report before his attempt to block the probe is concluded.

Justice Bere was serving at both the Constitutional Court (Concourt) and Supreme Court benches when he was suspended in March this year, to pave way for a probe into potential misconduct.

He approached the High Court seeking, as a matter of urgency, a ruling to set-aside the Judicial Service Commission’s decision to refer his case to President Mnangagwa recommending an inquiry into his alleged misconduct.

The finding of non-urgency means the tribunal can now sit.

The three-member panel is chaired by retired judge, Justice Simbi Mubako.

The other two are Harare lawyer Mrs Rekayi Maphosa and Advocate Takawira Nzombe.

Dismissing Justice Bere’s application,  Justice Alfas Chitakunye ruled the matter was not urgent.

He found that the application intended to sidestep the practice direction issued by Chief Justice Luke Malaba suspended filing of litigation at the courts during the period of national lockdown and only allowed urgent and bail applications to be brought to court.

“The alleged urgency was premised on wrong grounds altogether,” said Justice Chitakunye.

Earlier on, Justice Bere — who enlisted the services of two senior advocates, Firoz Girach and Lewis Uriri, and Constitutional law expert, Professor Lovemore Madhuku — successfully challenged the authority of the deponent of the JSC affidavit, Mr Walter Chikwana, the JSC acting secretary, in a separate urgent chamber application.

Mr Chikwana had been delegated by JSC to file a sworn statement of the commission’s decision advising the President in terms of the Constitution on the question of the removal of Justice Bere from office.

The lawyers argued that Mr Chikwana was not one of the members of the JSC in terms of the Constitution, hence he could not represent the commission in a dispute where its performance of the constitutional obligation was being    challenged.