BHUNU
J: The six accused persons are charged with treason as defined in s 20 of the
Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act [Cap
9:23], alternatively contravening s
30 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act [Cap. 9:23], that is to say, causing disaffection among the Police
Force or Defence Force.
The
State is ready to proceed with the trial but all the six accused are vigorously
resisting being placed on trial arguing
that they are not properly before this court on account of procedural
irregularities.
On
13 October 2010 under judgment number HH 238-10 I dismissed the accused's
objection and ordered that the trial must commence. Aggrieved by my ruling the
accused sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. I dismissed the
application on 27 October 2010 under judgment number HH-248-10. Dissatisfied
with my ruling in this respect, the accused then took the matter to the Supreme
Court seeking the same relief.
They
now seek postponement on the basis that they are not ready for trial and that
there is need to await the determination of the Supreme Court on the issue.
In
all the relevant judgments I gave extensive if not exhaustive reasons for my
rulings. I abide by those reasons there is no need to repeat them as they speak
for themselves.
For
those reasons it is still my considered view that the accused have no
reasonable prospects of success in the Supreme Court. It is therefore still my
considered firm view that both the Supreme and Appeal Courts are unlikely to
interfere with this court's inherent jurisdiction to try the accused according
to law.
I
find it incredible that the accused are not ready for trial when they filed
their defence outline and summaries of evidence more than two years ago on 11
July 2008. Undoubtedly the accused know the case they are going to meet and
they have had ample time to prepare for their defence. The blame for inadequate
preparation for the trial can only be laid squarely at the accused's door. They
therefore cannot be heard to complain when they have been sitting on their
laurels all this time.
I
am therefore of the firm view that the time has come for this matter to be put
to rest on the merits without any further delay, for “justice delayed is
justice denied.” Going round and round in circles without making any progress
towards the finalization of the case can only defeat the due administration of
justice in this country. Our law requires that an accused person be brought to
trial within a reasonable time. That legal requirement is subverted when the
legal system fails to try an accused person after more than three years of
incarceration without trial.
I
am however inclined to grant the accused one or more days to polish up their
defenses. It is accordingly ordered that
this matter be and is hereby postponed to 17 November 2010 at 10 am for trial.
Warara and Associate, accused's legal practitioners
The Attorney
General's Office, State's legal practitioner
