JOIN DRIVERN TAXI AS PARTNER DRIVER TODAY!
LUSAKA principal resident magistrate Mwaka Mikalile yesterday dismissed businessman Hanif Bhura’s application to re-summon two witnesses who testified in his forgery case after the prosecution closed their case.
In this matter, Bhura, 53, of house number 5897 Burma Road, Lusaka, is charged with five counts of making false documents, forgery and perjury contrary to the Laws of Zambia.
It is alleged that the offences were committed between 1996 and 2007.
Bhura is in the first two counts accused of making a false document, namely deed of gift purporting to show it was genuinely signed and approved by Yusuf Ismail, the complainant in the matter, when in fact not.
In the third and fourth counts involving the uttering of false documents, Bhura is alleged to have between October 1997 and 2007, knowingly and fraudulently uttered false deed of gifts in the names of Mehrunisha Bhura, to the principal registry of the Lusaka High Court.
In the last count of perjury, allegations are that Bhura on unknown dates but between October 1997 and March 21, 2001 in Lusaka, gave false testimony on oath in the High Court and instituted judicial proceedings alleging that a deed of gift document in the names of Mehrunisha Bhura was genuinely signed and approved by Ismail when in fact not.
Bhura denies having committed the alleged offences.
When the matter came up for continued trial before magistrate Mikalile, Ismail’s lawyer, Keith Mweemba closed the matter, saying although the prosecution had intended to call some more witnesses, they were satisfied with the evidence adduced already.
However, defence lawyer Dr Overs Banda applied to have Ismail and another witness summoned back to court for re-examination in relation to 12 new documents that had emerged in respect of the matter.
But Mweemba objected that it was not procedural for the defence to make such an application after the prosecution had closed the case.
Magistrate Mikalile dismissed Dr Banda’s application, saying at that stage of the matter, both parties could only make written submissions before ruling is delivered if they so desire.
The court set November 6 for ruling on case or no case to answer.
The Post
