Maravi

Farmer’s case referred to Supreme Court

Farmer’s case referred to Supreme Court
Herald Reporter

A GOROMONZI resident magistrate has referred the case of a commercial farmer in the area — accused of refusing to vacate State land — to the Supreme Court for determination of constitutional issues raised before trial.

Francis Forbes Gaby (87) who is facing prosecution for allegedly refusing to vacate the farm that was compulsorily acquired by the Government for resettlement, had his trial postponed yesterday after he challenged his prosecution on constitutional grounds.

His farm, Lot 1 of Mashonganyika Farm in Goromonzi, was allocated to Mr Reginald Choga Nyamutsamba.

The resident magistrate, Mr Francis Mapfumo, deferred the trial indefinitely to allow Gaby to make his constitutional application, in terms of the law.

Gaby is being charged for contravening Section 277 (5) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for allegedly occupying land without lawful authority.

Through his lawyer Ms Jacqueline Pratt of Mushonga and Associates, Gaby raised constitutional issues, which can only be dealt with by the full bench of the Supreme Court.

Ms Pratt also argued that the basis of the defence application was that Lands and Resettlement Minister Herbert Murerwa wanted the charges against her client withdrawn before plea.

The acquiring authority, she argued, wanted to re-plan Lot 1 of Mashonganyika Farm and that the ministry was reversing its decision on allocations.

Ms Pratt further told the court that the acquiring authority had the right to withdraw the case since it was also the complainant in the case.

But Mr Mapfumo differed with the defence on the argument that the State can withdraw the charges against Gaby because the acquiring authority intended to drop the charges.

"This court has no jurisdiction to compel the Attorney General to withdraw this case before plea.

"This court is not aware of the evidence available in the prosecution case.

"The minister can only recommend or request the AG to withdraw the charges," said Mr Mapfumo.

He cited a number of sections of the law to support the office of the AG’s independence in the exercise of its function as prosecution authority.

" . . . the AG shall not be subject to the direction or control of anyone or authority when exercising his powers . . . " he added.

He said the powers of the AG in the prosecution of criminal matters were not questionable.

"It is against this background that the court finds the application to have this matter referred to the Supreme Court sitting as a constitutional court frivolous and vexations over this point," said Mr Mapfumo.

Labels: LAND REFORM

posted by MrK @ 5:42 PM