THE Judiciary, as the third arm of the State, plays a critical role in upholding justice and protecting citizens’ rights.
However, a disturbing trend has emerged in Zimbabwe’s courts, where judges are prioritising the scrutiny of payment irregularities over the merits of a case.
This approach has resulted in numerous cases being struck off the roll, leaving appellants unfairly penalised and denied justice.
At the heart of this issue lies the payment of court costs through the clerk of court.
While the clerk of court is the authority responsible for receipting and preparing court documents, appellants are being held solely accountable for any irregularities that may arise.
This is despite the fact that appellants often rely on the clerk of court’s expertise and guidance in navigating the complex court process.
The consequences of this approach are far-reaching.
Appellants, who pay court costs in good faith, are being denied their right to a fair hearing.
- ‘Zimbos dreading 2023 elections’
- No reason to panic over monkeypox: Experts
- Unresolved land tenure dispute stifles Tongaat Hulett project
- Border Timbers targets European markets
Keep Reading
Instead, their cases are being dismissed due to technicalities, leaving them without recourse or remedy.
This not only undermines the integrity of the judicial system, but also erodes public trust in the courts.
Furthermore, this trend suggests that the government is using the Judiciary to fleece its citizens.
By prioritising payment irregularities over the substance of a case, the courts are effectively creating a revenue stream for the State.
This is a perversion of the judicial system’s purpose and undermines the principles of justice and fairness.
It is essential to recognise that the Judiciary’s role is to uphold justice, not to generate revenue for the State.
Judges must be mindful of the impact their decisions have on appellants and ensure that justice is served.
This requires a more nuanced approach, one that balances the need for accountability with the need for fairness and compassion.
To address this issue, several reforms are necessary.
Firstly, the Judiciary must revisit its approach to dealing with payment irregularities.
Instead of striking cases off the roll, judges should explore alternative solutions, such as allowing appellants to rectify any irregularities or providing guidance on the correct procedures.
Secondly, government must ensure the clerk of court’s office is adequately resourced and staffed.
This helps to prevent errors and irregularities from arising in the first place.
Additionally, the government must consider implementing measures to protect appellants from unfair treatment, such as providing legal aid or establishing an independent review process.
Constitutional law expert Nunurai Zunidza, who is head of international law and global politics at Goromonzi International Relations Institute, asserts that the practice is a blatant case of miscarriage of justice.
“Generally, JSC [Judicial Service Commission] should be seized with this kind of matter whereupon there appears to be miscarriage of justice.”
Another egregious aspect of this practice is the manner in which the government handles costs paid by appellants.
When a case is struck off the roll, the costs paid earlier are not carried over to the next attempt to appeal.
This means that appellants are forced to pay again, essentially being penalised twice for the same mistake.
This is particularly onerous for appellants who may have received financial assistance from well-wishers to pursue their case.
Having to redo an appeal can be a significant financial burden and the fact that the government does not recognise the costs already paid is nothing short of extortionate.
Moreover, it is unconscionable that the government can make an order forfeiting the money paid for a particular service when the discrepancies arise from its own administrative failures.
This is a clear case of the government profiting from its own inefficiencies.
The role of judges in this process is equally troubling.
Instead of upholding justice and protecting the rights of appellants, they seem to be complicity in the government’s scheme to fleece citizens of their hard-earned money.
By rubber-stamping orders that forfeit costs paid by appellants, judges are essentially aiding and abetting government’s extortionate practices.
This is a clear abuse of power and a betrayal of the trust that citizens place in the Judiciary.
Judges have a sacred duty to uphold justice and protect the rights of all citizens, not just those with deep pockets.
It is time for the Judiciary to take a long and hard look at its practices and ensure justice is served, not sacrificed on the altar for profit.
The behaviour of judges, who are striking off cases due to payment irregularities, is not only unjust, but also hypocritical.
These judges claim to be fighting corrupt tendencies by the clerks of court, but in reality, they are perpetuating a system that prioritises revenue collection over justice.
By striking off cases without considering the merits, judges are essentially punishing appellants for the mistakes of the clerks of court.
This approach ignores the fact that appellants often rely on the clerks of court for guidance on the payment process.
Moreover, this approach raises questions about the judges’ motives.
Are they truly committed to fighting corruption or are they using this as a pretext to generate revenue for the State?
The fact that judges are not providing clear guidance on the payment process and are, instead, relying on technicalities to strike off cases suggests that their priorities lie elsewhere.
Furthermore, this behaviour on the part of judges undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
It creates a perception that judges are more interested in generating revenue than in upholding justice.
This perception can erode public trust in the Judiciary and undermine the rule of law.
Efforts to get a comment from both the JSC spokesperson Daniel Nemukuyu or the secretary Walter Chikwanha failed.
Nemukuyu did not respond to questions sent to him while Chikwanha said Nemukuyu was the one responsible for Press issues.
To restore integrity to the judicial system, judges must prioritise justice over revenue collection.
They must provide clear guidance on the payment process and ensure appellants are not unfairly penalised for mistakes made by the clerks of court.
Ultimately, the behaviour of judges in striking off cases due to payment irregularities is a symptom of a larger problem — a judicial system that prioritises revenue collection over justice.
To address this problem, we need a fundamental shift in the way our judicial system operates.
We need a system that prioritises justice, transparency and accountability.
Anything less is a betrayal of the public’s trust.
In conclusion, the Judiciary’s approach to dealing with payment irregularities in Zimbabwess courts is unjust and unfair.
By prioritising technicalities over the substance of a case, judges are denying appellants their right to a fair hearing and undermining the integrity of the judicial system.
It is essential that reforms are implemented to address this issue and ensure that justice is served.
Tapfumanei Muchabaiwa is a Harare based journalist. He writes here in his personal capacity.
