DPP urged to be efficient

Tebogo Kgalemang
Correspondent | Wednesday June 22, 2011 00:00

Justice Chinhengo has expressed concern and disappointment at the way the DPP handles cases, and cited a recent case relating to a murder charge against a Zimbabwean native.

'I am concerned with a number of issues arising from how this case was handled,' Chinhengo said. The suspect, who has already spent more than two years in prison in connection with the murder charges, was issued with a nolle prosequi on a date scheduled for trial.

He stated that the case came before him for a roll call on September 10, 2010 for the first time. It again came on April 8, 2011 where date of trial was fixed. The trial was allocated two days, June 20-21st 2011.

Chinhengo said the DPP only advised the court that they did not intend to continue prosecuting the accused person a few minutes before trial was due to commence. 'Entering this means the accused will not be prosecuted and will effectively be acquitted of the offence charged,' Chinhengo said.

'But it also means that this court will be unable to hear any other cases for the two days allocated for this case,' added the judge. He said that if the prosecutor had advised the court in good time, there would have been no time wasted as other cases would have been heard.

'In this stage of judicial case management, all of us must be alert to the requirements of case management. It is a system of managing cases intended to infuse efficiency in management system including valuable resource of time and money,' Chinhengo said.

The judge further stated that during the time when the Director of DPP or any other person delegated signs the indictment for trial to the High court, they must decide whether or not there is enough evidence to prosecute the person.

'In this case that decision should have been made on June 15th 2010, but it was not.''I say this not to criticize the decision to issue a nolle prosequi. But I say this in order to show the unfortunate consequences of not making that decision earlier on.'

The accused has been in custody since September 2008 and had this decision been made even at the latest date of June 2010, the accused would have been removed, said Chinhengo.

'I could not avoid expressing my regret that this matter should have been handled much better from at least June 2010. The accused has been in custody while ultimately the decision is not to prosecute him.  Court was informed of the discontinuation at the last minute thereby causing it to lose its valuable time of two-days in dealing with matters,' stated Chinhengo.

He further decried that many people had been inconvinienced such as witnesses, defence counsel as well as the court staff.  In the end, the accused was issued his warrant of liberation.

Meanwhile on another issue, Judge Chinhengo has criticised another prosecutor for failure to procure an accused person's previous convictions on time.