Bail granted in Zimbabwe treason case
-Benschop defence notes
Stabroek News
February 8, 2003
At the continuation of the hearing on Thursday of the bail petition for Mark Benschop, attorney Basil Williams argued that just as the Zimbabwe opposition leader was granted bail in his treason case so Mark Benschop should be granted his pre-trial liberty.
Williams contended that “...the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus that is upon them to prove why Mr. Benschop should not be admitted to bail...”.
Earlier, the court granted his request to forbear the submission of an affidavit in reply to the prosecution’s affidavit in answer to the petition.
Thereafter, Williams argued that “there is nothing in the [prosecution’s] affidavit which directly contradicts any of the contentions in the petition.”
In support of his arguments, Williams first quoted a number of legal authorities on the corresponding issues before referring to the case against Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai for allegedly plotting the death of President Robert Mugabe along with two others. Williams argued that despite the seriousness of the charge, the opposition leader and his co-accused were granted bail in the sums of $3 million and $500,000 respectively.
He noted that no reference was made in the prosecution’s affidavit to the petitioner’s pledge in paragraph 16 of his petition which states “[Benschop] solemnly undertakes that if admitted to bail, he would faithfully attend at all times and in all places required of him and humbly abide the outcome of the aforesaid inquiry.” As a result, Williams asserted, the prosecution’s failure to acknowledge this could be viewed as a lack of objection to Benschop being granted bail.
In the event that Benschop was granted bail, independent sources are available and prepared to lodge surety on his behalf, the lawyer stated. Consequently, “the defence seeks to have Benschop admitted to bail in a reasonable sum.”
Meanwhile, Special Prose-cutor Sanjeev Datadin told the court in response, that in acc-ordance with the stipulations of statutory laws, a statute ought to be read as a whole. The prosecuting attorney said in that instance section 87 Chapter 10:01 of the Criminal Law Procedure Act should be read alongside section 81 (b) of the said Act. An interpretation of the Act’s legal signifi-cance after following the given procedure would be that a bail petition should not be filed before the High Court unless a similar application has been made before the Magistrate’s court and was refused.
In other words, Datadin intimated, the defence had ignored statutory obligations. Arguments continue on Mon-day before Justice Jainarayan Singh Jnr. (Edlyn Benfield)
