![]() ![]() He however placed the admissibility of the statements and indications in issue saying that they were involuntarily extracted from him through torture under unfriendly and hostile circumstances. The witness admitted, in open court, that, he made the said statements and indications to State authorities. He implicated the accused, alleging that he was responsible for financing the whole criminal enterprise to violently effect regime change through force of arms. In all those statements and indications, he confessed and admitted having committed the offence in collusion with others - including the accused. The witness also made indications which were captured on video tape at Adams Barracks. On 7 March 2006, he made a hand written statement at Adams Barracks, and, on 11 March 2006, he made a typewritten affidavit at CID offices. While under detention, the witness made certain written statements and indications. He was later transferred to police custody on charges of insurgency, terrorism, sabotage, and unlawful possession of firearms. He was then arrested and detained, together with the recovered weapons and ammunition, at Adams Barracks, by a group of State agents comprising the police, army, and CIO personnel. The brief undisputed facts are, that, on 6 March 2006, the witness was found in possession of a large quantity of firearms, ammunition, and arms of war. ![]() The facts giving rise to these impeachment proceedings, are, to a large extent, common cause. Any statement, or part of any statement, which would be inadmissible if led as evidence cannot be relied upon to show such inconsistence.” The previous statement must be shown to be inconsistent with the testimony of the witness by the party desiring to produce it. If the statement is signed, he may be asked to admit or deny his signature.Ĩ. The witness should then be asked whether he admits to having made a statement on the occasion specified. The witness should be given sufficient particulars of the alleged statement to designate the occasion upon which it was made.ħ. Such a statement may be oral, or written, and need not have been made to the party calling the witness, or for the object of being used in the proceedings in which the witness is testifying.Ħ. The nature of the previous statement takes many forms. Where the witness gives evidence which is inconsistent with a statement made by him previously, the party calling him may prove such statement. Having said that, the learned author proceeds to say, that, once a witness has been declared adverse, the party calling the witness is free to cross-examine him. Such hostility may be inferred from one or more of the following: his demeanour in the witness stand, his relationship with either party, his previous conduct, or the fact that he has made a previous statement inconsistent with his evidence." "An adverse witness is one who shows himself to have a mind hostile to the party calling him, or to the interests of such party. JW HORN, in his article, Discrediting One's Own Witness, published in the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Law Journal 1961…, defines an adverse witness in the following terms: If, however, any authority is required for that proposition of law, one need not look further than the case of S v Mazhambe & Ors 1997 (2) ZLR 587. It is trite and a matter of elementary law, that, a party calling a witness may not contradict, discredit, or challenge its own witness's evidence unless that witness has been declared a hostile or adverse witness by the court. Provided, that, any such party who has called a witness who has given evidence in any such proceedings, whether that witness is or is not, in the opinion of the judge or judicial officer presiding at such proceedings, adverse to the party calling him, may, after the said party or the said judge or judicial officer has asked the witness whether he has or has not previously made a statement with which his testimony in the said proceedings is inconsistent and after sufficient particulars of the alleged previous statement to designate the occasion when it was made have been mentioned to the witness, prove that he previously made a statement with which his said testimony is inconsistent." It shall be competent for any party in criminal proceedings to impeach or support the credibility of any witness called against or on behalf of that party in any manner and by any evidence in and by which, if the proceedings were before the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, the credibility of such witness might be impeached or supported by such party, and in no other manner and by no other evidence whatever: ![]() " 316 Impeachment and support of witness credibility
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |