Jacob Ngarivhume Fights For Freedom
6 June 2023
Spread the love

Source: Transform Zimbabwe

The High Court bail hearing is on today in Court P. Both the state and the defense counsel is already present. Waiting for the judge to appear and kick start the hearing..

The court resumes with Madhuku addressing first. He indicates that all arguments the defense has in favour of bail are contained in writen application done already. He argues that his client has good grounds for success on appeal. He said his client was convicted on a very week basis, that it, that he failed to outlined his defense when he gave his statement to the police. Further the lower court grossly misdirected itself in convicting the accused. There was no mention of a twitter account in the warned and cautioned statement. The state failed to prove that the twitter account in question belonged to the accused. Also all the 3 three witnesses declared that they did not know if the twitter account belonged to the accused. Witness Chirape confirmed that he was not an expert to say with surety that the Twitter handle indeed belong to Ngarivhume. The second witness Chief Sup Runganga had no clue but said it was Ngarivhume’s account but argued that the accused did not say it was not his wen he first appeared at the police station. Rungaga knew that law enforcement agencies can contact Twitter PLC for account verification but they chose not to blaming administrative challenges. So they now want to send the accused to jail because of their laziness. Runganga refused to accept that this was a classic example of a ghost account. From the 3rd witness who was suppose to be an expert he said it was a matter of probabilities that the account belonged to Ngarivhume. There was nothing scientific about his deductions and conclusions. He said the accused should have reported to Twitter if his name was being used as a ghost account. It is the defense’s conclusion that there was nothing credible and incriminating given by all the 3 witnesses to warrant conviction of the accused. There was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offense. We maintain that the sentence is manifestly excessive. It’s the first time in this country to sentence a politician for such a crime. This conviction should never have occured in our democratic country. We would suggest a bail of ZWL500k among other requirements..
[06/06, 14:26]


The state then argues that it abides by the ruling of the lower court. It will not make any oral presentation

The judge reserves judgement. It will be communicated later.