Pot times July 16, 2005

Former Zega Boss Chileshe Cries Foul

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1121/a03.html
Newshawk: Herb

Pubdate: Thu, 14 Jul 2005
Source: Times Of Zambia (Zambia)
Copyright: 2005 Times Of Zambia
Contact: times@zamnet.zm
Website: http://www.times.co.zm/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2871
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

FORMER ZEGA BOSS CHILESHE CRIES FOUL

FORMER Zambia Export Growers Association ( ZEGA ) chairman, Sydney Chileshe has urged the Supreme Court to quash the proceedings of the High Court because they were unfair and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Chileshe, 49, was last year sentenced to 10 years with hard labour by Lusaka High Court Judge Justice Charles Kajimanga after reviewing the case in which he was convicted and fined by a lower court.

The lower court had given Chileshe a suspended sentence and fined him K5 million after convicting him of four counts of trafficking and cultivation of marijuana, unlawful possession of firearm and unlawful possession of 18 rounds of ammunition.

But in his heads of argument in the Supreme Court, through his lawyer Bonaventure Mutale, Chileshe states that the proceedings of the High Court were unfair and resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, a material irregularity which should justify the quashing of the proceedings.

He submitted that the Judge misdirected himself in law when he purported to combine a review, a case stated and an appeal contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ( CPC ).

Chileshe submitted that a perusal of the case was a serious misunderstanding or confusion between the Judge, defence counsel and the state advocate as to whether the matter was an appeal, a review or a case stated, thereby resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned to him.

He told the court yesterday that Section 338( 3 ) and 349 of the CPC did not allow the combining of an appeal, a case state and a review and that the Judge appeared to have disregarded that.

Chileshe also said the Judge erred in law when he purported to impose a sentence greater than that which the trial court could have completely imposed.

He added that the Judge was wrong in principle as he failed to credit him for pleading guilty, being the first offender and suffering forfeiture of reality.

He further told the court that he received flawed advice from his defence counsel at the time to plead guilty to the charge of trafficking, as the indictment did not disclose any offence and resulted in gross injustice to him.

Judgment was reserved.