JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 37 ____________________________________________________________________ corrupt motives creates a substantial risk of impairing public confidence in the administration of justice. The court ordered the hearing of the matter to be resumed in the High Court before Mr Justice Blackie. The resumed contempt proceedings and the reaction to them Over eighteen months elapsed before the matter came before the High Court again. By that time Mr Chinamasa had become the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. The delay was mostly occasioned by a direction from the then Judge President that the contempt of court case should not be heard until the Supreme Court had decided an appeal against the judgment of Mr Justice Adam that had given rise to Mr Chinamasa’s contemptuous remarks. 61 The case was finally set down in the High Court but when Mr Chinamasa failed to appear in court, the trial judge, Mr Justice Blackie issued a warrant for his arrest. This led to an outraged public response from Mr Chinamasa which was published in the Herald newspaper on 4 July 2002. The Herald reported that Mr Chinamasa had “blasted” the issuing of the warrant of arrest and said that the judge’s conduct constituted “gross abuse of judicial office” and should not be tolerated. According to the report the Minister said he was appalled that a court would spend its precious time “investigating and harassing innocent people” without being bothered by the fact that the same court allowed “dangerous American terrorists to go scot-free”. His reported statement continued: “It is disappointing that judges, whose responsibility is to uphold freedom of expression, become themselves dangerously sensitive to criticism levelled against them by citizens concerned about judicial irregularities. In fact the abuse is so grave that in my view it is tantamount to misconduct. Notwithstanding Justice Blackie’s pending retirement on July 18, I am going to consult with the Chief Justice and recommend to him the setting up of a tribunal to investigate the conduct of Justice Blackie in this matter.” He noted that the powers of prosecution were vested in the Attorney-General in terms of s 76 of the Constitution. “It is unfortunate that in this case, the court has sought to arrogate to itself that power and such conduct should not be tolerated in a constitutional democracy such as ours.”62