Questioning by court (Zimbabwe)
The judicial officer's role is to try to ascertain the truth. He is therefore entitled, indeed duty bound, to ask questions of both State and defence witnesses in order to clarify points and to ascertain the facts. Where the case involves an accused who is not legally represented, the judicial officer may often have to put questions to the witnesses so that facts favourable to X emerge. The judicial officer must not, however, assume the role of prosecutor and put a barrage of questions to witnesses to try to ensure that X is convicted.
In Denhere & Anor S-39-91 the Supreme Court found that although the magistrate had admittedly asked many questions of the defence witnesses and none of the State witnesses, none of the questions were improper. He had explained in his judgment that he needed to resolve all contradictions and also make it clear to those witnesses that, for good reason, he did not believe them, but was giving them a chance to convince him. He was simply probing the defence to ascertain the truth. He had not approached the trial with a closed mind regarding the possible innocence of the accused.
Where the judicial officer has descended into the arena in a manner which clearly shows that he is biased in favour of the State and that he is not prepared to give proper consideration to the defence case, the defence lawyer may be obliged, tactfully and politely, to ask the judicial officer to adopt a more balanced approach. In extreme case the defence lawyer may even wish to ask the magistrate to recuse himself on the ground that he is biased and unable to conduct the proceedings impartially. The defence lawyer must, however, be very careful not to commit contempt of court by attributing bias to the judicial officer when he was simply exercising his discretion to question witnesses in order to clarify points.
See also Wright S-183-89 and Hove S-64-88.
Defence counsel should listen carefully to the judicial officer's questioning of the witness as the line of questioning often reveals how the judicial officer is thinking about the case. This questioning can thus suggest lines of questioning to defence counsel for subsequent witnesses to deal with the points raised by the judicial officer.