Roy Bennett’s trial due to start tomorrow
Roy Bennett’s trial is due to commence tomorrow, Tuesday 13 October, at the Mutare Magistrates Court, but his lawyers are expecting the State to try and buy time and keep him on remand for even longer.
Bennett is the Deputy Minister-Designate for Agriculture, and Mugabe is refusing to swear him in until he is cleared of all charges.
But what charges?
Bennett was unlawfully arrested in February this year and he has been on remand ever since. The State is currently claiming that Bennett was found in possession of weapons with an intention to commit sabotage, terrorism, banditry and insurgency.
In fact, it took the State a while to come up with a legal reason to keep Bennett on remand. The State initially accused him of contravening section 25 (1) of the Immigration Act, saying that he did not present himself to an immigration officer at a port of exit when he prepared to leave for South Africa from Charles Prince Airport. This charge was thrown out at the initial remand proceedings. Shortly after that Bennett was charged with treason, a crime that carries the death penalty, but this charge was dropped too and replaced with possession of weapons with an intention to commit sabotage, terrorism, banditry and insurgency
The inept handling of the question of ‘what to charge Bennett with‘ suggests that Bennett’s arrest is entirely politically motivated. If this was a genuine criminal case, one would assume that the police would know prior to the arrest what they were arresting the person for, and that they would know what to charge the person with after they had arrested him. This was clearly not the case for Roy Bennett.
One would also assume that there was evidence to substantiate the charges but, if there is any evidence, the inept prosecution team have yet to reveal what it is.
Bennett’s lawyers were outraged in July when the State asked for Roy Bennett to be kept on remand until October 13, tomorrow:
“The State was not ready for trial and they did not want him to be removed from remand and so they had to come up with a trial date – which they know that, if they were to put it so far away they will try to put their house in order. But we are not happy with this long period between now and the trial date.” (SWRA).
Bennett’s lawyers anticipate that there will be still more delays tomorrow because they have yet to receive indictment papers from the prosecution, despite the fact they have had several months to produce the papers in advance of tomorrow’s trial date:
“We have been communicating with the Attorney General’s office since [Bennett's] last remand date on the issue of the State papers including making an application to the courts in September this year to compel them to provide us with the indictment papers but they have failed to do so.” (RadioVop)
The indictment papers are necessary for the defence to prepare for trial, and they include materials like witness statements and any other documents or exhibits that the State will rely on in the prosecution of Bennett. The fact that the State has not produced these materials suggests that there is no evidence, and that the only reason for arresting Bennett was to prevent him from assuming his role as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
The absence of these papers is also an early indicatpr that the prosecution will possibly try yet again to curtail Bennett’s freedoms by keeping him on remand circumventing the need to produce evidence in a fair trial. Bennett’s lawyers intend to do all they can to prevent this from happening:
“We are going to ask the courts that he be removed from remand because the State has demonstrated that it is not interested in purposing the matter any more”
It is widely believed by Zimbabweans that the State, when they originally ‘arrested’ Bennett, had no intention at all of Bennett ever facing trial. The farcical events around the time of his so-called ‘arrest’, have left many believing that the State’s real intention was to abduct and ‘disappear’ Bennett. In fact, the fear that Bennett would be ‘disappeared’ was so prevalent around the time of his arrest that a vigil was organised to keep watch at the prison where he was held, attracting scores of supporters determined to prevent the police from moving Bennett to an undisclosed location.
The fact that the State have had to come up with charges and now face a trial leaves them in a tight spot; either having to come up with credible evidence to make the implausible charges stick, or to admit they have nothing and let him go.
But if they let him go, Bennett – a man deeply hated by the Zanu PF elite – will have to be sworn in as Deputy Minister of Agriculture. This is an unthinkable situation for the Zanu PF elite who have abused the land reform agenda to help themselves to multiple farms. Bennett, in the role of Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is unlikely to stand by quietly and let them get away with theft.
The State’s ‘tight spot‘ has become even more constricted following the recent Supreme Court ruling that found in favour of Jestina Mukoko, acknowledging that her human rights had been violated, that she had been tortured, resulting in all charges against her being dropped forever. It is a ruling which formally recognises what Zimbabweans already knew very well, and that is that there are elements within the State legal and justice systems (dominated by Zanu PF loyalists) that will abuse the legal system to suit their personal political objectives.
Individuals who have been complicit in abusing the legal system and perpetrating outrageous charges against innocent Zimbabweans have, for a long time, acted with impunity, but the Mukoko ruling paved the way for charges to be laid against those who have committed the crimes the court acknowledged took pace. Mukoko and eight other activists who have been victimised by the State responded swiftly and, at the start of this month, started legal proceedings against senior members of the government:
Jestina Mukuko is suing the state agents, minister of defence, minister of home affairs, the police officers involved in some of the papers the state filed [...] She’s basically suing for torture and unlawful detention and also to recover medical and legal expenses that she incurred as a direct result of the illegal activities that were perpetrated upon her by the state security agents.(BBC).
The list of names of those being sued by the nine human rights activists includes:
- Kembo Mohadi (Home Affairs Minister – Zanu PF)
- Giles Mutsekwa (Home Affairs Minister – MDC)
- Patrick Chinamasa (Minister of Justice)
- Didymus Mutasa (Minister of State for Presidential Affairs)
- Augustine Chihuri (Police Commissioner)
- Paradzai Zimondi (Prisons Commissioner)
- Happyton Bonyongwe (Head of the CIO)
- Senior Assistant Commissioner Nyathi
- Chief Superintendent Makedenge
- Detective Inspector Mpofu
- Chief Superintendent Magwenzi
- Asher Walter Tapfumaneyi
The fact that Giles Mutsekwa’s name appears on the list is a sharp reminder to the MDC parties that they are a part of the power-sharing government and that this makes them complicit in crimes against civilians if they do nothing to prevent them from happening. In a surprise move, the Attorney-General’s office announced this weekend that they would not provide legal assistance to those being sued by Mukoko et al, leaving ordinary Zimbabweans to wonder if this is an effort by Johannes Tomana, the Attorney-General, to distance himself and his office from the crimes committed against the activists:
Deputy Attorney General Prince Machaya told The Associated Press on Sunday that the state will not represent officials being sued by prominent human rights activist Jestina Mukoko and eight others.
The activists are seeking US$500 million for wrongful arrest, torture and abduction after their terror charges were dropped.
The list of defendants includes the security and defense ministers and the police chief — all Mugabe loyalists (AFP)
Tomorrow will be a challenging day for Roy Bennett, but it is gratifying to note that recent events mean it will be a very challenging day for those who have been engaged in this farce from the outset. The question is, how are the State going to extricate themselves from the lie they have pursued with such determination, without looking like fools and lawless thugs? Or are they going to pursue the case with fraudulent evidence and risk being sued? Or maybe they will bury their head in the sand and do what Bennett’s lawyers suspect they will do, and that is to try keep Bennett on remand for even longer, thus avoiding the need to produce evidence.
