Judgment No. CCZ 12/14 12 Civil Appeal No. SC 327/12 The issue of prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the accused which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. Three such interests have been identified. These are (i) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused and (iii) to limit the possibility that the accused will be impaired in his defence. Fikilini v Attorney – General (supra) at 113H – 114A. In her affidavit both in the court a quo and before this Court the applicant says her friend, Dr Iris Sarupinda, who was present at the time the companies were formed, has relocated to Europe and her present whereabouts are unknown. This case is a good example why viva voce evidence is essential in an application of this nature. The applicant does not say what evidence exactly Doctor Sarupinda would give in her defence. She does not say whether she suffered any anxiety during this period. Because the applicant did not give evidence, the State was not given the opportunity to cross-examine her on these issues. She does not say when the doctor left the country and what efforts she has made to trace her current whereabouts. In any event the formation of a company is never without formality. Various documents have to be filed showing the shareholding, directorship, registered office, etc, of a company. It is not suggested that this documentation is no longer available. The suggestion that the absence of Doctor Sarupinda will prejudice her is a bald one and in my view would not, in the absence of further substantiation, justify a permanent stay of the proceedings against her. DISPOSITION In my view no justification for a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant has been shown. Put another way, the suggestion that the right