Times Of Swaziland: BACEDE, MTHANDENI OFFER E1M FOR FREEDOM

BACEDE, MTHANDENI OFFER E1M FOR FREEDOM
================================================================================
BY MBONGISENI NDZIMANDZE AND KWANELE DLAMINI on 30/07/2021 09:11:00


MBABANE – Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube yesterday offered to
provide a combined E1 million on top of whatever amount the court may order them
to pay as sureties, which is forfeitable.
Each of the Members of Parliament (MPs) is prepared to put up E500 000 surety
from the pension that they are entitled to as MPs. This would be on top of any
other sureties and payable cash that they may be ordered to provide for their
release. Their representative, Advocate Mduduzi ‘Tsotsi’ Mabila, who was
instructed by Sifiso Jele of SM Jele Attorneys, told the court during the
hearing of their bail application yesterday that the money would be paid from
the duo’s pension scheme in Parliament. Mabila said the Crown would not have a
problem with that. However, when Mabila made this submission, Judge Mumcy
Dlamini said the advocate was raising a new issue which was not canvassed in the
papers filed in court in respect of the matter.
Deliberated
The issue of the pension was no longer deliberated upon any further. In the case
of Maxwell Dlamini, which was decided in the Supreme Court, he paid E15 000 and
had been charged for contravening the Suppression of Terrorism Act and
Subversive Activities Act. Mabuza and Dube have also been charged under the
Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008 as well as breaching COVID-19 regulations;
the latter charge being faced by Mabuza alone. The Crown is opposed to Mabuza
and Dube being granted bail on the basis that it claimed they were likely to
disturb public order, undermine public peace, evade trial, interfere with Crown
witnesses, commit similar offences and jeopardise public confidence in the
justice system. Mabila said the Crown’s argument that nothing could prevent
the two from selling their businesses and leaving the country to re-establish
new lives outside Eswatini did not hold water. The advocate said the Crown did
not bring facts to support their argument. He said the Crown made bare
allegations.
“In the Crown’s papers, there is no flesh. It is just bones. Their flight
risk allegation cannot stand. It falls away,” said the advocate. He further
submitted that the two would not interfere with witnesses as claimed by the
State. According to Mabila, it was strange that the accused persons had not been
provided with a list and statements of witnesses by the Crown and wondered how
they could possibly interfere with people they did not know.
Witnesses
The Crown, according to Mabila, said they would provide them with the list of
witnesses during the pre-trial. “They do not know right now who the witnesses
are.” Mabila informed the court that the State did not say that statements
were recorded with people from Hosea and Ngwempisi. He said the Crown only made
general statements that were not substantiated. “They are asking too much from
the court. Nothing controverts the accused persons’ submissions in their bail
application,” said Mabila. The Crown submitted in its papers that it had
evidence in the form of videos and recordings to prove that the two committed
the offences and that its case was watertight against the MPs. However, Mabila
noted that bail hearings had been turned into trials. He said the strength of
the case of the State was immaterial. He argued that the determining factors in
bail were interest of justice to grant an accused person bail, an enquiry if
they might flee or endanger public order.“Bail has nothing to do with the
guilt or otherwise of an accused.” Judge Dlamini said: “Absolutely.”
Mabila said it was not stated what the video recordings showed and recordings
contained.  He argued that if the Crown said it had a strong case and bail
should not be granted on those basis, then no one would be granted bail. He also
pointed out that Mabuza and Dube faced up to 15 years for allegedly contravening
the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 2008. He compared it to murder which carries
a maximum sentence of 25 years. “Hasn’t the court not granted persons
accused of murder bail? 25 years is stiffer than 15 years. Why shouldn’t these
two (MPs) not be granted bail?” asked Mabila. “The fact that they face the
possibility of 15 years in prison cannot be held against them not to be granted
bail.  As long as it is in the interest of justice to release them on bail, they
should be granted bail. I won’t deal with the other charge (contravening the
COVID-19 regulations) because a magistrate who is appointed today can deal with
that.”
Submission
According to Mabila, the Crown’s submission that the MPs would endanger public
safety if released and that certain officials are receiving death threats, could
not stand. Mabila said Mabuza and Dube were in custody and had nothing to do
with the alleged threats. He pointed out that the nature of the threats had not
been mentioned. To release the pair, according to Mabila, would restore
society’s confidence in the criminal justice system, unlike the Crown’s
submission that the public would lose confidence in the justice system. “That
is an absurd submission. Instead, society will have confidence in the justice
system. Everyone will know that in Swaziland (Judge Dlamini corrected the
advocate to say Eswatini) a person is not pre-convicted. Their release will
boost the public’s confidence in the justice system.” Mabila said society,
instead, expected the MPs to be punished if found guilty during trial.
Regarding the argument that Mabuza locked himself in his car for an hour and a
half, Mabila said police would have used force to remove him from the car. He
said, however, in his papers Mabuza told the court that he cooperated and the
police were professional in their work. Mabila also pointed out that the Crown
had the onus to prove that the two should not be granted bail. However, the
Crown argued otherwise.  The advocate further said the court could enquire as to
whether policing methods to ensure that they did not interfere with Crown
witnesses if granted bail.
“You say the court should impose policing methods?” asked the judge. Mabila
said in murder and other cases, the accused was granted bail and directed to
find an alternative place of abode. To extradite an accused if granted bail, the
Crown said its success rate was minimal. Mabila said in the case of Senzo Motsa,
the Crown submitted that they would have caught Mosta since ‘we live in a
global village despite that he surrendered himself’. The judge said she
realised that the Crown was hot on his heels and he surrendered himself.
Judgment in the matter has been reserved indefinitely.