Thulasizwe Simelane, Harare 

Lawyers representing the Treasurer of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party Roy Bennett have asked the country's High Court to order an investigation into the conduct of Attorney-General Johannes Tomana. Tomana whose appointment last year is at the centre of the tug-of-war between President Robert Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, is leading the prosecution.

Bennett's trial got underway yesterday with the state applying to have his defence's summary of its case rejected by the court. However, his lawyers responded by accusing Tomana of lying to the court by claiming that Bennett's alleged accomplice will give evidence against him, when he has indicated that such evidence does not exist.

The start of a legal journey that could end with Bennett facing the gallows, life imprisonment or see him freed to pursue his political ambitions. The drama of exhibits of rifles, boxes of ammunition and explosives being brought into court while in session was perhaps only eclipsed by the vigour of the legal sparring between attorney general Johannes Tomana and defence lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa.

Integrity and ethical conduct

The entire lead prosecutor wanted was to have the court throw out the defence's outline of its case. But what he got instead was an hour and half long, emotionally charged assault on his integrity and ethical conduct.

Mtetwa accused Tomana of misleading the court into believing that this man, ex-policeman Peter Hitchman will implicate Bennett in terrorism charges. This she says, in spite of Hitchman making it abundantly clear to the state that he has no such evidence.

Mtetwa said: “We are asking the judge to rule on evidence that we know is not there, we are saying it's prejudicial to us to have use respond to evidence we know is not there, how do we respond to it; So we want it struck out”.

However, the state believes Bennett's lawyers are evading the issue of their inadequate case summary. Attorney General; Johannes Tomana said: “The content of the statement does not amount to a defence outline that is the basis of our application. It also fails to give us sufficient notice time, it gives us two days”.

The judge's ruling tomorrow will either be a setback for the defence, forcing them to submit a new case outline, or it'll be a serious indictment on the attorney general's conduct.