High Court judge Justice Webster Chinamora has condemned the widespread practice of inmates masquerading as lawyers in the country’s jails, writing legal motions for fellow prisoners in exchange for meals and other favours.

Many self-actors applying for bail at the High Court now have a tendency of submitting poorly crafted applications before a bail judge, outlining what they term “compelling reasons” why they should be granted bail.

However, Justice Chinamora said such practices cannot provide assistance to the court and urged prison authorities to help inmates to get professional lawyers.

The judge made the remarks in a bail application by Onismo Tafirejee, who was seeking bail pending appeal on both conviction and 10-year imprisonment term imposed on him for contravening the Parks and Wildlife Act.

Justice Chinamora asked Tafireje, a self-actor, who had drafted the application for him, after noting that there was no application before him based on changed circumstances.

In his response, Tafireje said a fellow inmate had drafted the application for him in exchange for his meal. The judge then asked the prison officer who was in court to advise the officer-in-charge to discourage such practices.

“Inmates should not be utilising the services of unqualified fellow inmates masquerading as lawyers,” said Justice Chinamora.

“They should be encouraged and assisted in securing the services of professional practising legal practitioners or be helped in accessing lawyers from the Legal Aid Directorate.

“Applications by unqualified inmates unnecessarily clog the court roll without providing any assistance to the court or value to the accused inmate.”

Tafireje was convicted of illegal possession of ivory. Dissatisfied with both conviction and sentence Tafireje filed an appeal at the High Court.

He is now seeking bail pending the determination of his appeal. Opposing the application, prosecutor Mr Douglas Chesa argued that the conviction against Tafireje was unassailable.

Mr Chesa said the defence offered by Tafireje was bare denial as he failed to explain to the trial court as to how he came into possession of the ivory without authority.

“The trial court conducted an inquiry into special circumstances and none were found,” said Mr Chesa.

“Once the court found no special circumstances its hands were tied and it had to impose the minimum mandatory sentence.”

Mr Chesa said there was no misdirection on the part of the trial magistrate in the manner in which the proceedings were conducted to warrant the High Court to interfere with either the conviction and sentence.