LAWYERS representing Prophetic Healing and Deliverance leader, Walter Magaya, have warned the court is brewing a legal disaster by disregarding the provisions of the Constitutional Court rules.
Magaya was this morning on stand being led his lawyer Admire Rubaya in support of his application for referral of his matter to the Constitutional Court.
In response, the State led by Clemence Chimbari said they will only file their opposing affidavit without leading a witness to which the defence counsel said it was contrary to law as set out in the constitutional court rules.
Rubaya argued that the Constitutional Court rules require the court to hear evidence from both parties hence the State should lead a witness in their opposition to Magaya’s application.
Regional Magistrate Esthere Chivasa concurred with the State saying the Constitutional Court rules only apply to the Appex court and not the lower courts.
This was met with fierce opposition from the defence team which argued the court was brewing a legal disaster by disregarding constitutional court rules on how such applications are conducted before lower courts.
He argued that the reasoning that such rules only apply to the Constitutional Court does not apply as the Appex court can never adjudicate over an application for referral as it cannot refer a matter to itself.
While on stand, Magaya said he is even more scared to stand trial in a victim friendly court after viewing the state of infrastructure in the victim friendly courts.
The PHD leader told the court he fears the trial will be unfair if it is to proceed in camera given the state of equipment and that the court had simply concluded that the witnesses were vulnerable upon reading the state outline and relying on the mere say so of the State Counsel. Magaya argued that his legal team’s submissions were not considered and questioned why the magistrate failed to interview the alleged victims for it to make an independent assessment regards their vulnerability.
This is after he was given the opportunity to view the court by the magistrate.
Magaya said he experienced the ineffective nature of the equipment when he was in remand prison.
“The magistrate won’t have a clear view of the television and won’t see the demeanor of the witnesses. The television was black and white. I’m now more scared than I was before. That place won’t give me a fair trial at all,” Magaya said.
“When I was in Remand Prison, the audio wasn’t clear as well as the picture quality was not good,” he added.
Magaya told the court that the experience in a live court will be different from the one in victim friendly court.
“I will not get a fair trial from that court. The size of the room, television and the conditions may not allow us to see the truth of the matter especially delaing with adults who are not vulnerable witnesses are probably being couched since they are alleged to be in the custody of the police . A live court is way different from a television. Watching football match live is different from watching on television,” he said.
