This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L HARARE 000334 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR J. FRAZER, D. TEITELBAUM 
LONDON FOR C. GURNEY 
PARIS FOR C. NEARY 
NAIROBI FOR T. PFLAUMER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2014 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM PINR ZI MDC
SUBJECT: TSVANGIRAI TREASON TRIAL NEARS COMPLETION 
 
REF: A. HARARE 124 AND PREVIOUS 
     ¶B. FEB 23 UNCLASS EMAIL FROM BESMER TO M. RAYNOR 
 
Classified By: Political Officer Audu Besmer for reasons 1.5 b/d 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On February 24, the State concluded its case 
in the treason trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. 
The Defense was expected to complete its concluding arguments 
on February 26, but we would not expect a decision from the 
judge for some time.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (C) On February 24, the prosecution entered two new 
documents into evidence.  The first document was a response 
from the UK to a request for assistance from the Attorney 
General's Office in securing the testimony of Rupert Johnson. 
 A diplomat here said that the British Home Office had 
responded to the request (of months ago) with follow-up 
questions on whether testimony could be taken in the UK, or 
would Rupert Johnson have to travel to Zimbabwe.  She said 
the Home Office also responded that it could not give 
assistance in a death penalty case--all part of a standard 
response to such a query.  The diplomat said she thought the 
Attorney General's Office had not been very aggressive in 
pursuing Johnson's testimony as there was no response to the 
follow-up questions.  Other legal observers have noted that 
is unclear which side would benefit from Johnson taking the 
stand. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The second document the prosecution entered was a 
letter from Ari Ben Menashe concerning discrepancies that may 
have arisen between his testimony in the treason trial and a 
submission by Dickens & Madson made recently to a Montreal 
court.  Legal observers noted that the letter might not carry 
great weight with the Court, since Menashe was not here to be 
cross-examined on its contents. 
 
¶4. (U) Acting Attorney General Bharat Patel proceeded to sum 
up the State's case by going over the testimony of each of 
the state witnesses and also the audio and video evidence. 
He said there was a case against Tsvangirai, and that the 
testimony of Ari Ben-Menashe was credible. 
 
¶5. (U) The defense started its concluding arguments on the 
afternoon of February 24 and continued on February 25.  In 
its 75-page submission, the defense argued that there was no 
case against Tsvangirai.  Ben-Menashe was not a credible 
witness and his testimony could not be relied on.  Defense 
lawyer Innocent Chagonda said he expected they would complete 
their arguments by the afternoon of February 25. 
 
¶6. (C) COMMENT:  The trial has dragged on since February 
2003, and the State's ongoing strategy has been to prolong 
the proceedings as much as possible.  After the defense 
concludes its arguments, The case will be in Judge Garwe's 
hands.  Although it is possible he could render a decision in 
a matter of weeks, it is more likely he will wait for months 
or even a year or more to make an announcement.  Delay 
preserves a ruling party bargaining chip--dismissal of the 
case--in any interparty talks.  Observers have opined that 
the State would have a difficult time convicting Tsvangirai 
on such flimsy evidence, and that it would not want a 
conviction for fear of a public backlash.  We, however, could 
see a conviction as possible, given the politicized nature of 
justice here and Mugabe's efforts to de-legitimize the MDC 
and Tsvangirai in particular. 
SULLIVAN