close
close

Ivy Kombo and Andy Kasi accuse the State of unfair tactics – ZimEye

Ivy Kombo and Andy Kasi accuse the State of unfair tactics

By a correspondent| Gospel musician Ivy Kombo and her husband Andy Kasi, accused of illegally acquiring certificates to practice law in Zimbabwe, have lashed out at the state, alleging underhanded tactics in their prosecution.

Their lawyers, Admire Rubaya and Everson Chatambudza, described a scenario similar to “Animal Farm,” where the state considers itself a superior litigant and exercises unfair advantages.

“The State is creating a livestock farming scenario where ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others,’” say Rubaya and Chatambudza, criticizing the unilateral actions of the State that favor their position.

They maintain that the recent move by the State, led by the District Attorney, Mr Tafara Chirambira, to involve High Court Judge Sylvia Chirau Mugomba, is a desperate attempt to salvage a crumbling case.

Rubaya and Chatambudza maintained that this maneuver constitutes simultaneous investigation and prosecution, a flagrant violation of legal norms.

They expressed concern about the State’s tendency to introduce new evidence mid-trial without proper disclosure, citing an electronic document admitted into evidence without notice.

“The State initially requested the presentation of a document that it claimed was an email supposedly sent by the third defendant,” the defense lawyers lament.

“The alleged email document had not been notified to the defendants before the start of the trial but, despite the clear provisions of the law and the constitutional mandate, the State’s request was granted gratuitously to the serious detriment of the defendants. ”.

Furthermore, they argued that the State’s attempt to force the court to call Judge Chirau Mugomba as a witness further harms their clients.

They stated that such a request exceeds the authority of the State and undermines the autonomy of the court.

“It is the considered view of the defendants that the provision cited does not entitle a party to request the court to invoke its powers in terms of that provision,” they held.

“The defendant’s attorney understands that the provision can only be used by the Court on its own initiative to summon and/or remove witnesses and not for a party to file an application inviting the court to exercise such special powers without legal support. “

The defense awaits regional magistrate Feresi Chakanyuka’s decision on the matter, scheduled for Monday.