|
Court to rule on church leader forgery case today
2005-08-15 08:01:10
By Keregero Keregero
Senior Resident Magistrate Euphemia Mingi of Kisutu Resident’s Magistrate Court in Dar es Salaam will today rule on whether or not the American Blessings Church leader, Peter Mutafungwa, facing forgery charges, ought to be charged with 25 additional counts to the initial five counts already instituted in court.
The ruling, to be delivered, follows a request by the prosecution seeking to add 25 fresh charges which, if granted by the trial court, would make the total number of counts against the accused to 30.
The Church leader was arraigned for allegedly presenting two forged cheques valued at USD2,500,000 and USD560,000, purporting to show that they were issued by Children Pastors International of USA for the Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation (MNF), when he very well knew that it was not true.
According to the prosecution, the forged documents were uttered at the Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation offices in Dar es Salaam.
The decision to prefer additional charges to the accused that necessitated the amendment to the charge sheet was made by, the prosecutor, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Camilius Wambura.
Wambura told the court that fresh investigations had found out that the accused committed 25 additional felonies for which there was ample incriminating evidence that would be adduced in the course of the trial to establish prosecution’s case.
’Your Honour, investigations have unearthed fresh evidence. The accused has committed more offences than already charged.
We ask that he be charged with 25 additional counts, bringing the total number of charges to 30,’’ Wambura said.
However, the request was immediately brushed off by the defence attorney, Barnabas Luguwa, who asked the Court to dismiss it because it was not maintainable.
Luguwa said the prosecution side had acted contrary to the laid down procedure as criminal law required them to ask for the leave of court first before they amended the charge sheet.
He said the amendment of the charge sheet was not an automatic issue but one which revolved around the discretion of the court and was in no way an exclusive mandate of the prosecution to pursue with the amendment in the manner they liked.
The defence lawyer further said the prosecution’s move was unbecoming, and could in no way assist in the dispensation of justice other than subjecting the legal machinery of the case to unnecessary delays.
He said the court had already set the ball rolling with the order from prosecution to start its case.
But instead of proceeding with the case, the prosecution came up with the amendment issue.
’’This, Your Honour, is designed to cause protracted delays for their own sake and in the detriment of my client, an issue that ought not to be entertained,’’ Luguwa pleaded.
|
