UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema’s lawyers have asked a Lusaka Magistrate to set the opposition leader free in the case where he is accused of using insulting language because the arresting officer is incompetent and a pathological liar.
In their written and final submissions filed in court on Friday, the defense lawyers averred that the arresting officer, Mbita Mpazi’s evidence was not worth gracing the courts records as it was an embarrassment to humanity.
The defense lawyers also said Mpazi’s evidence must be ignored because he was the complainant, investigator and arresting officer at the same time.
“PW3 is not only incompetent and a pathological liar, but his evidence must completely be ignored by this court considering the fact that he is the complainant, the investigator and the arresting officer at the same time, surely, the fundamental principles of natural justice do not permit as justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. This witness’ evidence is not worth gracing the honorable court’s record as it’s not only an embarrassment to humanity and morality but also only serves the purpose of perpetuating mischief and injustice,” defense lawyers stated.
They also asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that no independent person testified against HH.
“This court must take judicial notice that there was no independent witness who testified in the matter and as admitted by the prosecution witnesses, the danger of fabrication of false implication has not been excluded. The State lamentably failed to produce collaborative evidence as a matter of practice in this case. It is simply the words of the witnesses against the accused’s plea of denial. The state deliberately withheld evidence favorable to the accused and it had to take the ingenuity of defense counsel to secure the official investigations and arrest report which exposed some of the lies by PW3, the arresting officer,” they stated.
“This conduct by the state offends the principle in the case of Abel Banda vs The People (1986) Z.R. 105 to the effect that where a prosecutor knows a credible witness whose evidence supports the accused’s innocence, he should inform the defense about him. This principle extends to the evidence available to the police. We remain in awe and shock as to what other evidence which proves the accused’s innocence has been withheld by the state. Your honor, we humbly pray that this honorable court must, in view of the foregoing, dismiss the prosecution’s case and forthwith acquit the accused person and set him at liberty.”
The defense also observed that the state witnesses’ testimonies were not collaborating.
On Thursday, Mpazi was forced to apologise to the court after the defense caught him lying that he was not at HH’s house around 22:00 hours on April 10 when his records indicated that he was there.
Magistrate Malumani is expected to deliver judgment tomorrow (Monday).