Lawyers ask Justice Bhunu to recuse himself from Bennett’s case
ZLHR Press Release – 12 Nov : Lawyers representing Deputy Agriculture Minister Designate Roy Bennett on Thursday 12 November 2009 requested High Court Judge, Justice Chinembiri Bhunu to recuse himself from presiding over the trial of the former Chimanimani legislator.
The application was made when it came to light that Justice Bhunu had in 2006 considered and dismissed a bail application filed by Peter Michael Hitschmann when he was facing similar charges to those in Bennett’s current case.
The State is alleging that Bennett was an accomplice of Hitschmann, who the State has listed amongst its witnesses.
In his judgment delivered in May 2006, Justice Bhunu stated that the charge which Hitschmann was facing was a serious one in that it constituted a threat to State security. The judge then denied bail after also finding that undoubtedly there is overwhelming evidence against” Hitschmann who at the time was facing charges of conspiracy to possess weapons for insurgency, banditry, sabotage or terrorism in contravention of section 10 of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:17]. Hitschmann was later acquitted of the charge by another High Court judge.
Bennett’s lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa, who met Justice Bhunu in his chambers on Thursday together State prosecutors including Attorney General, Johannes Tomana said proceeding with the trial under Justice Bhunu would be prejudicial to Bennett since the Judge had already made comments that could be prejudicial to the former Chimanimani legislator’s case and which called into question his impartiality if he were to continue with the case.
Justice Bhunu will decide whether to recuse himself or not on Monday 16 November 2009.
In 2006, when Peter Hitchsmann applied for bail, Bhunu ruled:
Justice Bhunu ruled that; “Undoubtedly there is overwhelming evidence against the applicant. It is common cause that he was found in possession of the alleged offensive weaponry. He only disputes the classification of such weaponry. The State has classified the disputed weaponry using a government official, an armourer of more than two years experience whereas the applicant apart from the mere say so of his legal practitioner from the bar has laid no basis for challenging the State’s classification.
