Judul : Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court
link : Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court
Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court
The leader of Prophetic Healing and Deliverance, Walter Magaya, has submitted a review request to the High Court, contending that the magistrate's court's decision not to release him during his first appearance constitutes a serious breach of the law, which he asserts is taking the nation back to the colonial period.
On November 3, when Magaya first appeared in court, his legal team—Admire Rubaya, Everson Chatambudza, and Advocate Sylvester Hashiti—requested his immediate release, contending that his detention was unreasonable and that Section 50(3) of the constitution required his release.
Clemence Chimbari, Tendai Shonhayi, Kudzai Chigwedere, and Chipo Muronda represented the State, which acknowledged Magaya's excessive detention but argued he should not be set free and should instead seek civil solutions.
Magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa eventually sided with the State, rejecting Magaya's appeal and directing him to pursue legal solutions through civil channels.
After his release on Thursday, Magaya, represented by Rubaya and Chatambudza, submitted a request to the High Court to reconsider Gofa's decision, arguing that this kind of judgment cannot be accepted in a democratic society.
In his submission, he has mentioned Magistrate Gofa in his official role as the first respondent and the Prosecutor General as the second respondent.
By converting this explicit Constitutional directive into just a starting point for civil legal action, the 1st Respondent (Magistrate Gofa) essentially altered the public's intention as stated in the Constitution from the courtroom, establishing a perilous example that could enable government officials to openly breach basic rights with almost no consequences.
"the hypothetical authority to make laws and the following ruling by the first respondent reverts the criminal justice system to the Lancaster House constitution, which was rejected by Zimbabweans when the new Constitution came into effect in 2013," stated a section of the application.
Magaya contended that the court's incorrect ruling should be disputed to avoid a surge of upcoming injustices.
He mentioned that his legal efforts aim to address the abuses carried out by the government.
Despite the thorough and comprehensive arguments presented by my legal team, the 1st Respondent still took a firm stance, ultimately aligning with the 2nd Respondent and deciding that I could not be released right away without conditions.
In practice, the State argued that it was acceptable to hold any individual who was arrested and in custody for as long as it considered necessary, extending far beyond the constitutionally set 48-hour limit, without providing that person any substantial opportunity to challenge their detention before a criminal court.
The application states, 'Such a submission should send a disturbing message to all Zimbabweans, as it signifies a dangerous step back to the abolished Lancaster House Constitution, where those accused could remain in detention for long periods without any solution other than filing ineffective complaints.'
As per Magaya, the government's actions might attract some backing, yet they establish a harmful precedent that does not belong in a constitutional democracy.
This approach by the State — exploiting, misusing, and overextending its authority to arrest and detain — might seem acceptable to certain individuals who, due to personal motives, have a grudge against me and thus support the actions of law enforcement officers. However, in a constitutional democracy, such misuse cannot be accepted and must be stopped at its source.
"If left uncontrolled, this random weakening of freedom could spread to a degree that would encourage police officers to see themselves as the ultimate authority," he stated.
Magaya claimed that the court did not properly understand the applicable constitutional clause.
"With all due respect, the 1st Respondent's decision reveals a basic and alarming misinterpretation of
Judicial interpretation within the constitution that reaches the point of significant misconduct.
Her conclusion that the remedy for a violation of section 50(3) of the Constitution is civil compensation instead of the immediate and unconditional release of the wrongly detained individual, which is the solution outlined in the same provision for over-detention, represents a total and blatant undermining of the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe. 'Must' means must.
"The expression 'must be released immediately' is not just a directive but an urgent command, establishing a constitutional duty that allows no judicial flexibility. This clause does not solely impose an obligation on law enforcement agencies to release someone who has been detained beyond the legal limit, but it also applies to any court where an over-detained individual would have been taken for the purpose of appearing to prolong their detention," Magaya stated.
Copyright 2025 263Chat. All rights reserved. Shared by AllAfrica Global Media (okay1).
Tagged: Zimbabwe, Legal and Judicial Affairs, Religion, Southern Africa
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).Thus the article Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court
You are now reading the article Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court with the link addresshttps://www.angkaraja.cfd/2025/11/magaya-challenges-unconstitutional.html
0 Response to "Magaya Challenges Unconstitutional Detention in Court"
Post a Comment