Maravi

(HERALD) Brown denying me justice: Georgias

Brown denying me justice: Georgias

AS the hue and cry over the rule of law and disregard for due process in Zimbabwe reaches a deafening crescendo, with the British government leading in peddling falsehoods and pitching the myth of apocalypse, away from public glare, British courts are denying access to a fair trial to Senator Aguy Georgias in his landmark case against European Union sanctions. In an interview with CAESAR ZVAYI, Senator Georgias broke his silence over the blatant bias displayed by the British High Court in hearings conducted so far.

QUESTION: The last time we spoke, hearings had commenced in your case against the European Union sanctions in the British High Court where you have filed a suit against the British government to challenge the travel ban imposed on Zimbabwe government officials in the EU sanctions regime. Can you give us an update on the developments so far?

ANSWER: The hearings have now started as you say. However, there have been a lot of curious developments and what I may call serious anomalies impinging on the fair administration of justice.

First and foremost, I was initially advised by the British immigration that I would be entitled to an in-country hearing of my appeal at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to give oral evidence. The fundamental principal of justice is the right to be heard.

Close to the date of the hearing, solicitors for the British government advised my London solicitors that this was no longer the case and that the hearings at the tribunal were to take place in my absence.

My solicitors then immediately petitioned the British High Court to grant permission in order for me to attend the hearings.

In the meantime the date for the hearing at the AIT was due and indeed the hearings commenced in my absence.

My lawyers successfully argued for a postponement, and won reprieve from the presiding judge at AIT for adjournment pending the outcome of my appeal at the High Court.

However, in hearing my case for an in-country hearing, the presiding judge at the High Court, without any show of consideration for the arguments presented, ruled against us and dismissed, with costs, our petition for a fair hearing.

Needless to say, my solicitors and I could not accept such a verdict, reached and premised on the application of a wrong EU policy instrument even: Common Position 2002/145/CFSP where the decision against me was made on the basis of Common Position 2004/235/CSFP (as amended by Common Position 2007/235/CSFP) which replaces CP 2002/145/CFSP.

We have thus appealed against the ruling and the matter is now proceeding to an oral hearing whose date is still to be set. In essence, it is an application directed against the adverse impact on my legal position of denying me the in-country right of appeal to which I am entitled.

What I find strange is that those who make the loudest noise about the fair administration of justice, and rule of law, are not prepared to uphold the standard and instead go all out to flout with impunity, one’s right to that access to a fair hearing. It is a despicable double standard. Can you even fathom the idea that one can get a fair trial or hearing in absentia?

Q: In the circumstances, are you then likely to succeed in petitioning for a fair hearing, as there appears to be a pre-determination to quash your case before it is even heard?

A: It is apparently one of the reasons I have broken my silence to comment over the actual proceedings in this matter: the fear that I will be denied access to a fair trial. Developments around my case point to gross interference, if not an attempt to frustrate the case outright. This is understandable in view of the likely political fallout.

It is obvious that a favourable outcome for me poses potential embarrassment to the British government, in view of their hostile agenda and propaganda on Zimbabwe. Ours is a solid winnable case, and this explains attempts to deny me a fair hearing.

The case in London is only the start of a legal battle in which I will take my case against EU sanctions further to the EU Court of First Instance.

I am not blinking on this one; if anything I am determined to exhaust all channels as the process demands. This is why I have taken the step to appeal to Sadc, through its current chair, President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia, for moral, diplomatic and political support of Zimbabwe in the fight against the EU sanctions.

Our economy is hurting with contagion on the Sadc regional economy.

Q: Has this support been forthcoming? What is the feedback so far?

A: It is not like we are pinning all hopes on goodwill from Sadc. In view of recent developments, i.e. the recent hastily convened Sadc summit on Zimbabwe held in Lusaka and the subsequent report of the ministers who attended on behalf of Zimbabwe, we cannot rely solely on the unpredictable whims of certain regional leaders, however much we may seek their support.

In my opinion, President Mugabe as an icon of Africa’s struggle for liberation, deserves the respect of all of us, not least from the new crop of African leaders of the post-liberation era.

The least we want from President Mwanawasa is to have him on record. Whether or not he supports us is up to him.

Our strength is in the legitimacy of our case. Our hope is the competence of our solicitors who have thus far exhibited incredible skill, capacity and ability to present a solid challenge and valid legal arguments in the courts.

Our recourse therefore is to the courts, despite the calculated setbacks and attempts to frustrate our case.

My real wish is that the current economic hardships that the people of Zimbabwe are enduring may not continue for long, that games of politics may not affect the sanctity of life, and the people’s right to pursuit of happiness and liberty.

That is my motivation. Unfortunately, there are others who think that all I need is to hog the limelight away from them.

This is not so. The sanctions are quite clearly an issue of national concern. It sounds sadistic to suggest that I may derive any personal glory or gratification from what is patently people’s suffering.

In any case, I cannot be discouraged in doing that which is good. I have been there before. Remember I fought single-handedly for the in duplum rule.

The outcome of that case has been to the benefit of everyone, Government included. Trivial objective and petty jealously will not detract me. We must learn to and, in fact, need to work together as a people for our common good.

Q: You talk about working together for the common good. What is it that we should do as a people and to be more specific you people in Government what should be done?

A: We are all pulling in different directions no cohesion, if we work together as a team and share ideas, turning around the economy of this country will be a piece of cake.

Remove suspicion and mistrust, petty jealousy and we will be home and dry, but we in Government should not lie and mislead the head of state, he will make national decisions based on the lies we would have told which affects the whole country.

The sad part is when things go wrong, the president is on his own to defend we the liars, the nation the whole country and himself — how very sad.

l caesar.zvayi@zimpapers.co.zw

Labels: AGUY GEORGIAS, GORDON BROWN, SANCTIONS

posted by MrK @ 6:41 PM