By Mercy Matonga & Brenda Kayo:
The extradition case involving Enlightened Christian Gathering (ECG) church leader Prophet Shepherd Bushiri and his wife resumed at the Lilongwe Magistrate Court Tuesday.
In March this year, Magistrate Madalitso Chimwaza, who is hearing the case, adjourned it after a request by the defence team—which wanted to scrutinise some of the evidence presented by the State.
Tuesday, defence lawyer Wapona Kita concluded his cross-examination of Sibongire Mnzinyathi, who is also a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in South Africa’s Gauteng Province.
- Advertisement -
Kita started by asking Mnzinyathi if he had read the charges to the accused, which is a preliminary requirement as per Section 264 of the Criminal Procedures Act.
- Advertisement -
In his response, Mnzinyathi said they had not provided the charge sheet to the court.
Quoting Section 9(4) of the Criminal Procedures Act, Kita further asked Mnzinyathi if he was the witness who could assess the strength of the case, to which he replied, “No”.
In the afternoon, defence lawyer Annelen Van De Heever continued cross-examining Mnzinyathi.
Heever asked Mnzinyathi to explain how the affidavit in one of the charges against the Bushiris was formulated.
- Advertisement -
Mnzinyathi said there were various investigations taking place and that, after the fugitive offenders fled South Africa, they agreed to make an extradition request.
Mnzinyathi said it was after making this agreement that the drafting of the affidavit was made.
He added that he signed it after being satisfied with its contents.
Heever also asked Mnzinyathi to explain the differences between various pieces of evidence presented in the affidavits.
Mnzinyathi said he could not highlight the evidence as he did not go through all the statements presented in the affidavits.
However, State advocate Dzikondianthu Malunda objected to some of the questions, saying they are supposed to be asked during the trial.
Delivering her ruling on the objection, Chimwaza overruled it, saying it is important to hear the evidence, according to Section 6 of the Extradition Act.
According to Mnzinyathi, there were allegations that some witnesses in the case were being paid to withdraw their statements, and investigations into the allegations were underway.
Speaking to journalists after the adjournment of the case, Heever said the objections raised by the defence regarding the questions being asked were necessary, as the responses would help prove the evidence provided.
“We think some of these rape cases were created because what you can see in the written statement is not what you can see in the typed statement, and also the prosecutor wanted to force those who withdrew their statement to make false statements against the prophet,” Heever said.
On his part, Malunda said he believes that some of the questions being asked should be asked during trial.
“The defence kept on going [over] what we believe are the merits of the case, and our objections swelled on that the issues being raised are not important at the extradition point,” Malunda said.
The case is expected to continue today, with Chimwaza expected to deliver her ruling on whether the defence can continue with the type of questions they dwelled on Tuesday.
