HIGH Court judge Justice Gibson Mandaza has indefinitely adjourned the bail hearing for Heart & Soul TV head of news Blessed Mhlanga, who is being accused of transmitting data messages that incite public violence after the defence requested further particulars.
Mhlanga’s lawyer Chris Mhike yesterday told Justice Mandaza that the State was refusing to give him electronic and video recordings which it alleged are in its possession.
Mhike said the said evidence would facilitate the delivery of a meaningful determination by the court, saying what was written on the request for remand form is different from what was uttered in the recordings.
The defence said it had tried to engage the State, but that the latter was not interested in the discussion.
“I tried to engage the State before commencing the court, but he was not interested in allowing the appellant to challenge the evidence. We can have an adjournment to midday to allow the State to avail this evidence,” Mhike said.
“This is important because the State presented the accused with quotes of words that have been allegedly transmitted which are completely different from the words on the request for remand case.
“The prosecutor has a warned and cautioned statement which they cannot release because of the privilege they have on the docket. We believe the importance of video graphic evidence will cure our arguments.”
But the State said the defence should have requested the said evidence at the magistrates’ court, where Mhlanga initially appeared.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
However, Mhike challenged the State’s assertion that he did not request the evidence at the magistrates’ court and referred the judge to the court transcript saying he had requested the said evidence, but magistrate Farai Gwitima could have none of it.
“It is not true that the issue of evidence arrived for the first time on these proceedings. We did point to the issue of electronic and video graphic evidence at the lower court and we did attack the credibility of that evidence so it is a continuation of request from what we did at the lower court,” Mhike said.
“We are raising this issue for the second time with the hope that the High Court will have a fairer hearing as the magistrate court did not want to hear anything of that sought.
“The State seems to entrench the views of the magistrates’ court so in our grounds of appeal we challenge the reasoning of the magistrate court.”
However, the judge indefinitely adjourned the matter to determine the application for request of further particulars.
