Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:31:20 +0000
IT IS rare that a magistrate’s court can refuse to grant anyone an application for bail pending appeal to the High Court as happened in the case of freelance journalist Chanda Chimba 111 over the trial in which he is nothing but a pawn in a game of powerful political chess.
Chimba has been jailed for two years after being found guilty on two counts of unlawful printing and publication of two propaganda tabloids, the News of our Times and Stand up for Zambia, for which he was hired by a certain former ruling party to tarnish the image of a leading former opposition leader.
He was also convicted on one count of disposal of property suspected to be proceeds of crime and fined K1,000. Two of his co-accused, a senior politician and former senior civil servant, were acquitted.
The court first refused to accept his plea during mitigation that he has a terminal illness which, if sent to prison, would hasten his demise, saying he and his lawyer did not bring proof of the illness to the court. He then spent several weeks in remand awaiting the court’s decision on his bail application.
Last week the magistrate threw out his application for bail pending appeal to the High Court on grounds that there were no chances of his appeal succeeding and that the two grounds of appeal were ‘‘determined during trial’’.
While we cannot comment on the merits of the case, it is quite clear that some of the decisions in this matter border on issues to do with how the judicial system can allow itself to be used as a tool of discrimination between the haves and have-nots, the powerful and the powerless.
This case has exposed how our courts have drawn a distinct line between politicians and we the ordinary folk in the administration of bail applications.
We feel that Chimba’s legal and human rights have been trampled upon by a court that is supposed to be his refuge for justice. It is not only unfair but frightening to imagine that a court can take away your right of appeal which is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen who has committed a bailable offence.
The liberty of a person is sacrosanct and cannot be substituted for anything else. To say that giving the journalist bail would circumvent the court’s own judgment is far-fetched and a mistrial. It masks the injustice contained in that decision.
Chimba was convicted of a misdemeanor which cannot be categorized as a serious offence. He was not involved in violence or any such high-profile crimes for which politicians are being given bail on a daily basis in our courts.
The only crime Chimba committed was that he was a victim of powerful machinations which used him to achieve political goals and then dumped him when they lost political clout which they were using to persecute their perceived enemies.
Where is justice when his paymasters and co-accused are found not guilty and freed but the messenger of bad news is incarcerated and even denied bail pending appeal? This contradiction in our dispensation of justice is puzzling and leads to suspicion that there are certain forces at play.
If Chimba were a politician and not journalist he would be out of custody and enjoying his freedom. Now even his perilous heath condition cannot be considered as a mitigating factor for the poor fellow to spend the Christmas with his family while awaiting the higher court’s decision over his appeal.
We may ask, where is justice? Was this a political decision?
