12 December 2018
JAILED duo of Psychology Maziwisa and Oscar pambuka who were last week imprisoned for 30 months each have petitioned the courts seeking to overturn their conviction and sentence.
Maziwisa , 34, and Pambuka, 33, were found guilty on two counts of swindling the Zimbabwe Power Corporation (ZPC) of $12 650 in a botched public relations deal.
Through their lawyer Jonathan Samkange, the duo applied for their bail pending an appeal at the High Court.
Magistrate Lazini Ncube is today expected to make his ruling over the application.
“The basis of this application are enunciated in the notice and grounds of appeal. What is necessary is to show that there is prospect of success.
“Both applicants are attacking their conviction and sentence and are calling upon a different judicial officer to look into the matter.
“We are of the view that another judicial officer can come up with a different ruling from the other and a higher court might reduce the sentence,” argued Samkange.
The former Zanu PF Highfield West legislator Maziwisa and television personality Pambuka have also strongly opposed their sentence.
“We request a community service as opposed to an effective sentence especially if young people are involved.
“Young people have a high rate of repenting and must not be subjected to effective sentences.
“It is my humble persuasion to apply that we approach the High Court for the court might have been too harsh to the applicants,” he said.
The defence counsel applied that in the interim the applicants be freed on bail pending the appeal.
Appearing for the State, Michael Reza opposed the application saying there were no prospects for success on the appeal.
Michael Reza argued that the State had already presented a formidable case and called five witnesses to prove its case.
He said the applicants did not tender any evidence or call any witnesses only resorting to mere say so.
The prosecutor submitted that no sentence exempts first offenders and the State believes that the court was correct to convict and sentence both applicants.
Reza argued that the sentence was sound and at law there is no chance another court would interfere with the decision.