ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

๐€ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ƒ๐๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐Œ๐š๐œ๐ค๐ž๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐Ÿ‘๐ŸŽ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐š ๐œ๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐š๐ง๐ฌ๐ฐ๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ก๐š๐ค๐š๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐š ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ž๐ซ ๐œ๐š๐ฌ๐ž The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has received a significant win after the Mombasa Law Court found Pastor Paul Mackenzie and his 30 co-accused with a...

22,855 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

The ruling by a High Courtโ€™ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didnโ€™t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: โ€ขThe two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. โ€ขThe judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the stateโ€™s case. โ€ข The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. โ€ขThe second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. โ€ขThe third element is that the state witnessesโ€™ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. โ€ขIn their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didnโ€™t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didnโ€™t argue that the evidence of the state witness isnโ€™t credible. โ€ขMpofu and Chimombe also didnโ€™t raise element number 1, meaning they didnโ€™t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. โ€ขThe two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. โ€ขThe accusedโ€™s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. โ€ขThe judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. Itโ€™s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. โ€ขThe companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. โ€ขWatch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi

mmatigari

20,172 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

The issue of disclosure has been very persistent in the Molly Katanga case. Itโ€™s nice to see the country now talking about ODPPUGANDA and how they think that disclosure is just a favor they do to accused persons. On the contrary, itโ€™s a constitutional requirement and is hugely important in ensuring fair trial. Justice presumes a parity of arms. Back in November 2024, Justice Isaac Muwata had this to say on that issue: โ€œโ€ฆ.and coming to the subject of disclosure, this must be strictly observed.โ€ โ€œsee the case of Soon Yeon Kong Kim and another Vs the Attorney General, cited in this case as well as Article 28 of the constitution.โ€ โ€œI also find the case of Republic Vs Ward, 1993 (See: R v. Judith Ward, Court of Appeals of England, Criminal Division instructive. The Court of Appeal of England had this to say: โ€œThe prosecutionโ€™s duty at common law is to disclose to the defence all relevant scientific material, i.e. evidence which tended either to weaken the prosecution case or to strengthen the defence, required the police to disclose to the prosecution all witness statements and the prosecution to supply copies of such witness statements to the defence or to allow them to inspect the statements and make copies unless there were good reasons for not doing so.โ€ Even with that, the state continues to stall on disclosure. These cases are talked about because they somehow have media attention but a question should arise as to how many citizens up and down the criminal justice system are suffering under the weight of prosecutors run rogue? We need comprehensive #DPPReforms

Anthony Natif

18,778 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 3 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

95 Arrested Over Anti-Mnangagwa Protest, Accused Face Public Violence Charges Legal Summary: The State v. 95 Accused Persons (ZRP KOPJE CR 604/03/25) Charge: The accused are charged with Participating in a gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of peace, or bigotry in contravention of section 37(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Factual Allegations: On 31 March 2025, the accused allegedly gathered at Robert Mugabe Square (Freedom Square), Harare, intending to proceed to State House with the objective of removing the sitting President of Zimbabwe by unlawful means. The group is alleged to have chanted inflammatory slogans, thrown stones and other objects at police officers, and posted videos of the incident on social media platforms, including a WhatsApp group named Nyokayemabhunu. Arrests and Identification: โ€ขAccused [1] to [94] were arrested at the scene. โ€ขAccused [95] was arrested later through identification from digital media. โ€ขThe accused were allegedly positively identified both in person and through social media evidence. โ€ขThe WhatsApp group was reportedly administered using a South African number linked to an individual named Knox Chiwer. Police Opposition to Bail: The investigating officer, Detective Sergeant Lovemore Chisi, opposes bail on the following grounds: 1.The offence carries a serious custodial sentence (maximum 5 years). 2.The accused are likely to abscond. 3.Communications retrieved from Nyokayemabhunu indicate threats to police officers, posing a risk to witnesses. 4.The accused may commit further offences. 5.Some accomplices remain at large, and release may jeopardise further arrests. Current Status: โ€ขBail has been formally opposed. โ€ขInvestigation is expected to conclude by 15 April 2025. โ€ขApproximately 20 witnesses are anticipated to testify. This matter is pending remand and further judicial proceedings.

ZimEye

106,929 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

PROTECTED CELLEBRITE REPORT OF WITNESS TEXTS FROM AIDAN KEARNEY'S MTD LEAKED TO SOCIAL MEDIA Aidan Kearney, whose abuse of the discovery process is well known and well documented after a phone extraction he received of a former girlfriend was leaked to social media, has now shared protected discovery from a murder case. That discovery has also found its way to this platform. The discovery is a Cellebrite report of a text message between Jen McCabe and her daughter and was presented in a hysterical fashion by Bederow Law in Kearney's motion to dismiss. Rather than interpret the text in a plain manner, as a mother telling her daughter not to discuss in fear of jeopardizing the case, Bederow included the text as a footnote claiming it was all part of a cover up. Laughable. Other leaks from this same protected discovery include texts messages between witnesses Kerry Roberts and Jen McCabe as well as screenshots of communications between witnesses and the CW victim advocate. Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. and Bederow Law are well aware of their client's documented abuse of discovery. They are also well aware of the protective order which they unsuccessfully requested the court remove. That ruling came more than 3 months ago. Further, both men have been tagged in leaks of their own messages with Kearney showing they were well aware people outside the legal team had access to discovery and grand jury minutes. To date, they have done nothing to stop the invasion of privacy of the witnesses. Their client is charged with intimidating and harassing witnesses and at this point, through their lack of action, they appear to be aiding him in further harassment of these same witnesses. Their culpability needs to be scrutinized. It's time for consequences. Enough is enough.

Julie Carpenter

16,165 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 6 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰