Home Africa News OPINION| Here Is Why Mai TT’s Appeal at the High Court Is...

OPINION| Here Is Why Mai TT’s Appeal at the High Court Is Unlikely to Succeed

256
0

Controversial comedian and media personality Mai TT was yesterday sentenced to nine months in prison for defaulting on community service and theft of trust property. Within hours of her being sentenced to 9 months in prison for theft, there were reports that Mai TT will be filing an appeal at the High Court to challenge her conviction and sentencing in an effort to regain her freedom. If she does indeed file the appeal at the High Court, however, it will most likely fail.

Despite her denial of ever being convicted for assault when questioned by a community service officer, the State later confirmed that she had indeed defaulted on community service, leading to her three-month sentence. Additionally, Mai TT’s theft of trust property has resulted in a 12-month prison sentence, with six months suspended. She still has a pending fraud case and is set to return to court in August. Based on these circumstances, it is unlikely that Mai TT’s appeal at the High Court will succeed.

Mai Tt and estranged husband Tinashe Maphosa on their wedding day (Image: Mbare Times)
The key reasons why Mai TT’s appeal is unlikely to succeed are as follows:

Dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness: The prosecutor, Monalisa Mangwendi, argued that Mai TT’s conduct demonstrated dishonesty and untrustworthiness. Mai TT not only failed to perform the required hours of community service for eight years but also denied ever being convicted. This dishonesty and lack of remorse were noted by the magistrate, who considered it grounds for a custodial sentence. The High Court is unlikely to overturn a decision that was based on these factors.
Perjury: Mai TT was found guilty of perjury for giving false testimony during the trial. This further undermines her credibility and weakens her case for an appeal. The court’s decision to convict her of perjury suggests that the evidence against her was substantial and convincing, making it difficult for the High Court to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

Previous conviction: Mai TT admitted to having a previous conviction for domestic violence against her ex-husband. She claimed that she had made a complaint and was awaiting a response from the police, but no action was taken. However, the magistrate confirmed the existence of a warrant of arrest, indicating that Mai TT was aware of her previous conviction. This admission of a previous conviction strengthens the lower court’s decision and makes it challenging for the High Court to overturn it.

Lack of eligibility for community service: The court considered community service as a possible sentence but ultimately decided against it due to Mai TT’s demonstrated lack of eligibility. The court noted that she had failed to perform the required hours of community service for eight years and showed no intention of fulfilling her obligations. The High Court is unlikely to reverse this decision without substantial evidence or arguments to suggest that community service would be a more appropriate sentence.

Severity of the offences: Mai TT’s offences, including defaulting on community service and theft of trust property, are serious crimes that warrant punishment. The lower court carefully considered the facts of the case, including the recovery of the stolen property, the impact on the victims, and Mai TT’s conduct throughout the trial. The severity of the offences and the court’s rationale for the sentence make it challenging for the High Court to overturn the decision without compelling new evidence or legal arguments.
In conclusion, based on the circumstances surrounding Mai TT’s case, it is unlikely that her appeal at the High Court will succeed. The lower court’s decision was grounded in evidence, legal considerations, and the seriousness of the offences. Mai TT’s dishonesty, lack of eligibility for community service, and previous conviction further weaken her case for an appeal. The High Court will likely uphold the lower court’s ruling unless there are substantial new arguments or evidence presented

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here