JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 38 ____________________________________________________________________ Mr Chinamasa said his criticism of the Mr Justice Adam’s judgment was warranted, did not undermine the integrity of the court and did not therefore constitute contempt of court. “As a matter of fact,” he said, “the record will show that my criticism was vindicated by the Supreme Court which was more severe in its criticism of Justice Adam’s judgment.” (The Supreme Court, it should be recorded, had dealt with the judgment on appeal and had described the sentence Mr Justice Adam imposed as “manifestly lenient”, but its criticism was more temperately expressed than Mr Chinamasa’s). Mr Chinamasa said he was out of the country when Mr Justice Blackie issued the warrant following his failure to appear in court to answer a charge of contempt. Finally, Mr Chinamasa said he had asked the Attorney-General to challenge the validity of the warrant in court. In its article on 4 July 2002 the Herald also quoted the Attorney-General as saying that this was a civil matter and not of a criminal nature and that a default judgment should have been issued instead of a warrant of arrest. He said he did not understand why a warrant of arrest could have been issued where there was no personal service, adding that Mr Chinamasa’s lawyers were not served with the notice of the hearing. The Minister then attempted to prevent the continuation of the contempt of court charge against himself by including in a General Laws Amendment Act a provision that would have narrowed down the capacity of the court to institute or continue contempt proceedings, other than proceedings taken as a result of contempt committed in the court-room. This provision, had it not been struck down by the Supreme Court, would have prevented the High Court from continuing the contempt proceedings in this case.63 The judgment and the reaction to it In July 2002 the contempt case was resumed in the High Court before Mr Justice Blackie. Mr Chinamasa again failed to appear before the court. On 17 July 2002 Mr Justice Blackie gave his judgment in the matter. He found Mr Chinamasa guilty of two counts of contempt of court. The first charge related to Mr Chinamasa’s attack on the sentence imposed by Mr Justice Adam in 1999. The second charge related to Mr Chinamasa’s public remarks reacting to the issue of the warrant of arrest against him.