By CHARLES MUSONDA
JAILED Lusaka photographer Cornelius Mulenga Tukuta, also known as Chellah, has been denied bail pending appeal in a case he was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour for defaming then Information minister Dora Siliya.
High Court Judge Lameck Mwale, who sat Chief Resident Magistrate in the matter, yesterday dismissed Tukuta’s application for bail filed by his defence lawyer Linda Kasonde.
Mr. Justice Mwale dismissed the application on grounds that the reasons that the convict had advanced were frivolous.
He said he did not agree with Tukuta’s position that his appeal in the High Court has high prospects of succeeding because his conviction was well grounded.
He said he did not think that Tukuta could have served a substantial part of his sentence by the time his appeal will be heard and determined.
Mr. Justice Mwale said appeals no longer take long to be heard and that he is aware that appeals are heard and determined within 90 days.
He said there are no special or exceptional circumstances to warrant Tukuta being released on bail pending appeal.
Last week Tukuta, through Ms. Kasonde, filed seven grounds of appeal in the Lusaka High Court, saying the issues he raised were not frivolous or vexatious.
He said the trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when he determined that the words he uttered, accusing Ms. Siliya of selling young girls to high profile men for sex, were defamatory in the absence of any evidence to prove that assertion.
He said Mr. Justice Mwale erred in law when he acknowledged the existence of a video that was wrongfully introduced into evidence or played in court; and that he misdirected himself by playing and considering the contents of a video wrongfully tendered into evidence outside of the court proceedings.
Tukuta further argued that the trial magistrate erred in law when he held that the now convict never furnished the court with evidence to substantiate his testimony thereby moving the burden of proof from the prosecution onto him.
He said Mr. Justice Mwale erred in law and in fact by inferring guilt from his decision to remain silent in his defence.
He said the trial magistrate erred in law by sentencing him to two years imprisonment with hard labour despite the fact that the he is a first offender and that there were no aggravating circumstances to warrant such a punishment.
