Home | News | Mario was charged after Terrorism Act - govt

Mario was charged after Terrorism Act - govt

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE - Government has filed its replying papers on Mario Masuku’s application to have the terrorism charges withdrawn and avers that Masuku has no case to pursue.

Government lawyer Mndeni Vilakati has filed papers at the High Court, where he alleges that instead of Masuku wanting the charges withdrawn on the basis that the Terrorism Act had not come into effect when he was charged and arrested, he still had another remedy which he could invoke- Section 155 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 67/1938 and argue that the main charges do not disclose an offence cognisable in law.

“The applicant does not dispute that Section 155 (1) of the CP and E is open to him. His answer to the principle of avoidance is that the said Section 155 (1) may only be raised at the commencement of the trial and that the trial is a long way from commencing. We submit that the fact that the trial may be a long way off does not detract from the fact that it is possible to decide this case without reaching the constitutional issue.

“At any rate Section 21 (10) of the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial within a reasonable time, which the applicant can invoke to have his day in court,” read Vilakati’s heads of argument.

Vilakati also contends that Masuku had failed to allege that Section 3(1), 4 and 5 of the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act 46/1938 had, or was likely to contravene the right to protection of freedom of expression.
Vilakati also argues that the Terrorism Act came into operation on Monday, September 22, 2008. He contends that Masuku committed the offence on September 27, 2008.

“In the case at hand, the applicant alleges that the decision of the DPP to prosecute him on the alternative charge is actuated by malice and it is an abuse of process (sic) because it is calculated to defeat his complaint that the main charge is bad in law. We submit that both complaints fail to meet the high threshold required for successful change to the DPP’s decision,” continues Vilakati.
Appearing for Masuku is human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko.

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: