News / National
Review of Zimbabwe's judiciary system demanded
24 Mar 2013 at 22:27hrs | Views
High Court judge Justice Charles Hungwe's failure to sentence a 55-year-old man he convicted over 10 years ago is unfortunate and calls for an urgent review of the way the judiciary operates, analysts and ordinary Zimbabweans said yesterday.
The man, Jonathan Mutsinze, was tried on charges of murder and armed robbery committed in 1998.
His trial began in 2002 before Justice Hungwe and was concluded in March 2003.
Mutsinze was convicted of murder with actual intent and extenuation done before the matter was remanded to another day for sentencing with the records being retained by Justice Hungwe who has failed to sentence Mutsinze over the past 10 years.
Legal experts said without a sentence, Mutsinze was denied the right to appeal both his conviction and sentence as the matter is considered partially heard.
Speaking to The Herald yesterday, social commentator Mr Gabriel Chaibva slammed Justice Hungwe saying he was supposed to take full responsibility.
"Justice was not delivered here. In my view the judge is answerable to this case. After being told and reminded on a number of occasions that the critical documents to this case were missing, why did he not come up with a way forward? He is the administrator of justice.
"In politics such cases are treasonous and I do not know what is the gravity of such a case in the judiciary," said Mr Chaibva.
National University of Science and Technology academic Dr Lawton Hikwa, said justice delayed was justice denied.
"If critical information to a case is lost, that is justice denied and the people will end up saying where is no justice. From a professional point of view, we need proper records management in these institutions."
A Chegutu resident Mr Thomas Chinyerere, said it was alarming that a person would stay for such a long time in remand prison with court officials failing to find the way forward following the disappearance of some dockets.
"If its negligence, the judicial managers have a huge task to clean up this mess. The problem is that this profession (judiciary) has been mystified, it is like belief systems and people are thrown in jail for querying decisions of some these 'learned' people," he said.
National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations chairperson Mr Effie Ncube said it was unfortunate that some people, guilty or not guilty were made to stay in remand prison for such a long time before their cases were concluded.
He said when people start interpreting the new constitution, where the judiciary fails to account for critical information to a case, the affected people were supposed to be released until the dockets were found.
"If the state loses critical information, there is no reason in it keeping someone in remand prison for that long. They should say we cannot keep you here any longer . . . we will proceed this way if we get the information.
"In professional training people are told to keep documents. Imagine a person who is not guilty kept in prison for that long and later to be told to go home, or letting out someone who is supposed to be in jail. It's a matter of people organising themselves and doing the right thing," said Mr Ncube.
The man, Jonathan Mutsinze, was tried on charges of murder and armed robbery committed in 1998.
His trial began in 2002 before Justice Hungwe and was concluded in March 2003.
Mutsinze was convicted of murder with actual intent and extenuation done before the matter was remanded to another day for sentencing with the records being retained by Justice Hungwe who has failed to sentence Mutsinze over the past 10 years.
Legal experts said without a sentence, Mutsinze was denied the right to appeal both his conviction and sentence as the matter is considered partially heard.
Speaking to The Herald yesterday, social commentator Mr Gabriel Chaibva slammed Justice Hungwe saying he was supposed to take full responsibility.
"Justice was not delivered here. In my view the judge is answerable to this case. After being told and reminded on a number of occasions that the critical documents to this case were missing, why did he not come up with a way forward? He is the administrator of justice.
"In politics such cases are treasonous and I do not know what is the gravity of such a case in the judiciary," said Mr Chaibva.
National University of Science and Technology academic Dr Lawton Hikwa, said justice delayed was justice denied.
A Chegutu resident Mr Thomas Chinyerere, said it was alarming that a person would stay for such a long time in remand prison with court officials failing to find the way forward following the disappearance of some dockets.
"If its negligence, the judicial managers have a huge task to clean up this mess. The problem is that this profession (judiciary) has been mystified, it is like belief systems and people are thrown in jail for querying decisions of some these 'learned' people," he said.
National Association of Non-Governmental Organisations chairperson Mr Effie Ncube said it was unfortunate that some people, guilty or not guilty were made to stay in remand prison for such a long time before their cases were concluded.
He said when people start interpreting the new constitution, where the judiciary fails to account for critical information to a case, the affected people were supposed to be released until the dockets were found.
"If the state loses critical information, there is no reason in it keeping someone in remand prison for that long. They should say we cannot keep you here any longer . . . we will proceed this way if we get the information.
"In professional training people are told to keep documents. Imagine a person who is not guilty kept in prison for that long and later to be told to go home, or letting out someone who is supposed to be in jail. It's a matter of people organising themselves and doing the right thing," said Mr Ncube.
Source - Herald
