64. The Applicant also avers that the prosecution’s evidence was based almost
exclusively on the accounts of five (5) prosecution witnesses who were
asked to recall and testify on matters that occurred eight (8) years before
casting doubt on the plausibility of witness testimony.
65. The Respondent State disputes the Applicant’s allegations and contends
that he was tried within a reasonable time taking into consideration the
seriousness of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission
of the offence and the proceedings involved. It is the Respondent State’s
contention that murder charges are serious in nature and attract a death
sentence upon conviction and, therefore, the dictates of justice demand
presence of free-of-doubt evidence that imputes the commission of the
criminal offence to the suspect. The Respondent State argues that this
requirement necessitates the need to scrutinise the available evidence
which requires time.
66. The Respondent State also submits that the delays complained of are
justified by the fact that the Applicant’s case was adjourned three times in
order to hear key witnesses. It is the Respondent State’s submission that it
cannot be blamed for the failure of the said witnesses to attend the case.
The Respondent State avers that counsel for the Applicant had no objection
to the adjournment of the cases as the witnesses who were absent were
most important in the determination of the case. The Respondent State also
contends that the Applicant’s case was handled on time since the trial
lasted only four (4) days and judgment was given two (2) days thereafter.
67. In his reply, the Applicant submits that, contrary to the Respondent State’s
contention that it cannot be blamed for the multiple adjournments, the
witnesses who failed to attend the trial were prosecution witnesses. It is the
Applicant’s contention that despite being granted two years to do so, the
Respondent State could not locate its own witnesses and was allowed to
proceed with its case supported by a statement of a key witness who did
not attend the trial and could not be cross examined. The Applicant, finally,
submits that his failure to object to the adjournments, as argued by the
18