News / National
Rushwaya bail appeal hearing commences
11 Dec 2020 at 18:53hrs | Views
SUSPENDED Zimbabwe Miners Federation leader Henrietta Rushwaya, locked up for reportedly attempting to smuggle 6kgs of gold out of Zimbabwe, said the magistrate adopted a wrong procedure in denying her bail.
Rushwaya, who has been in custody since October 26 after she was busted at the Robert Mugabe International Airport with the gold in her luggage intending to fly to Dubai, said this in her bail application at the High Court yesterday.
She is jointly charged with Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operatives Steven Tserayi and Raphios Mufandauya, one Gift Karanda and businessman Ali Mohamad, who has since been released on $100 000 bail. High Court judge Justice Benjamin Chikowero yesterday ordered that Rushwaya and her accomplices' bail appeal be consolidated before the case proceeds tomorrow.
The matter was deferred after Rushwaya's lawyer, Tapson Dzvetero, noticed that the record of proceedings that was compiled at the magistrates' courts was incomplete as it did not have her licence for gold dealing, which is material in the bail appeal.
"In the procedure adopted, the court a quo acted on the wrong principles of law and allowed irrelevant submissions. The court a quo made mistakes and failed to take into account relevant matters," Dzvetero said.
"Concessions initially made for her release on bail as at October 27 meant that there were no compelling reasons why the appellant had to be denied bail. "It is trite that it is the State's onus to give compelling reasons, but the State addressed the court and the magistrate did not seek any clarification and the same applied with the defence."
In the bail appeal, Rushwaya is arguing that Nduna erred by making a finding that she has connections outside Zimbabwe and could flee, without any evidence.
She said Nduna was wrong to assume that she would interfere with witnesses and should not have reopened the bail hearing after initially being advised by the State that her release was not being objected to.
"The learned magistrate a quo misdirected himself in concluding that the applicant has connections outside which might act as an inducement to abscond when no such evidence was placed before the court," she said.
"The State did not provide evidence that the applicant had connections outside the country that would provide refuge in case she absconded and the onus rested on the State to prove that allegation."
Rushwaya, who has been in custody since October 26 after she was busted at the Robert Mugabe International Airport with the gold in her luggage intending to fly to Dubai, said this in her bail application at the High Court yesterday.
She is jointly charged with Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) operatives Steven Tserayi and Raphios Mufandauya, one Gift Karanda and businessman Ali Mohamad, who has since been released on $100 000 bail. High Court judge Justice Benjamin Chikowero yesterday ordered that Rushwaya and her accomplices' bail appeal be consolidated before the case proceeds tomorrow.
The matter was deferred after Rushwaya's lawyer, Tapson Dzvetero, noticed that the record of proceedings that was compiled at the magistrates' courts was incomplete as it did not have her licence for gold dealing, which is material in the bail appeal.
"In the procedure adopted, the court a quo acted on the wrong principles of law and allowed irrelevant submissions. The court a quo made mistakes and failed to take into account relevant matters," Dzvetero said.
In the bail appeal, Rushwaya is arguing that Nduna erred by making a finding that she has connections outside Zimbabwe and could flee, without any evidence.
She said Nduna was wrong to assume that she would interfere with witnesses and should not have reopened the bail hearing after initially being advised by the State that her release was not being objected to.
"The learned magistrate a quo misdirected himself in concluding that the applicant has connections outside which might act as an inducement to abscond when no such evidence was placed before the court," she said.
"The State did not provide evidence that the applicant had connections outside the country that would provide refuge in case she absconded and the onus rested on the State to prove that allegation."
Source - Daily News
