Bennett trial takes new twist… as state seeks to impeach key witness

By Sebastian Chiweshe, Harare

HARARE- The trial of Zimbabwe’s deputy Agriculture Minister-designate Roy Bennett, accused of illegally possessing weapons for purposes of terrorism, banditry and insurgency, has taken a new twist with the prosecution indicating that it wants impeach its key witness, whom it accuses of being ‘unfavourable’.

Arms dealer Michael Peter Hitschmann, the prosecution’s star witness whom police claim implicated Bennett in the procurement of the arms, took to the stand and nodded his head in affirmation when asked by Attorney general Johannes Tomana, if he knew Bennett.

“Yes, I know him. I first saw him on television. Later when he was at a public gathering adding party supporters,” said Hitschmann to a fully packed courtroom.  Hitschmann said he was not aware of some of the weapons which the State claims were bought by Hitschmann with the financial support of Bennett.

Bennett,  who is a senior official of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has pleaded not guilty to the charge of terrorism and a separate charge of inciting people to carry out acts terrorism, which carry a death penalty in Zimbabwe, or  a maximum sentence of life in prison, respectively.

The MDC – led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai – says the case against Bennett is politically motivated and aimed at keeping him out of the unity government it formed with President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party last February.
Hitshmann – who looked relaxed throughout the proceedings – disowned emails that were produced in court Tuesday – which the prosecution says had been retrieved from his laptop. The prosecutors claim that emails revealed plans by Hitschmann and Bennett to commit terrorism.

“None of the contents were retrieved from my laptop in my absence or in the presence of my legal counsel (in 2006 when he was arrested),” he said, adding that, “I don’t know here they came from.”

After that, Tomana started cross examining Hitschmann resulting in Bennett’s lawyers saying the prosecution was trying to ‘confuse’ people. It was at this point that Tomana indicated that he was in the ‘preparatory stage’ to ‘to lay evidence that Hitschmann was being inconsistent.’

He added that: “The witness – who is an accomplice witness by the way, is getting to be a witness in favour of the accused; we are entitled to start impeachment procedures when the state witness starts showing that he is being unfavourably indisposed in favour of the accused.”

However, Bennett’s lawyer Beatrice Mtwetwa, objected saying that the prosecution had never indicated that it had emails which were purportedly written by her client and Hitschmann.

She said Hitschmann submitted an affidavit saying he does not want to testify against Bennett, adding that the statements which were purportedly made by the state witness were made under ‘traumatic and unfriendly circumstances’ in 2006 when he was arrested.

“That is an army-procured statement. What legal basis is there to change it to a witness’s statement? The statement was made when he was an accused facing conspiracy charges,” said Mtetwa.  “During that time the prosecution did not indicate that he had acted in common purpose with the accused (Bennett).”

Hitschmann was acquitted of terrorism charges in 2006 but served a two-year jail sentence for a lesser charge of possessing weapons without a licence.  The weapons include six sub-machine guns and two machine guns – all of which have been re-produced in Bennett’s trial as part of the states exhibits.

Justice Chinembiri Bhunu who resumed the trial after adjourning it last November is expected to make a ruling Wednesday whether impeachment procedures by the state can proceed.

Throughout the court proceedings Bennett, clad in a blue suit matching blue tie and a light blue shirt, sat motionless and occasionally gazed upwards. He laughed out once when Hitschmann said he first saw Bennett on television punching the justice minister Patrick Chinamasa in Parliament. IA