Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Director General (DG) Martha Chizuma had an exclusive interview with the Malawi News the other week and shared her experiences plus an update on Zuneth Sattar-related cases.
According to Madam Chizuma, the fight has not even begun despite the smoke and screens.
She explained that former Minister of Lands Kezzie Msukwa and Sattar’s agent Ashok Nair’s appeal against Judge Redson Kapindu’s judgement, which permitted the use of evidence from Britain’s National Crimes Agency (NCA), has delayed arrests of others with similar cases.
“The Supreme Court is key to all cases related to Sattar. All evidence comes from the same source. We must proceed cautiously since developments, in that case, will impact the rest,” she said, adding that the Bureau is also examining other evidence to supplement NCA’s.
Implying that the Supreme Court is a double-edged sword, she said goings on at the Supreme Court, while affecting prosecutions are “also informing investigations”.
She did not spare the rotten apples amongst us media practitioners. Those implicated will have to explain why they collected money from Sattar.
Vis-à-vis the appeal holding progress, the Registrar of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal Kondwani Banda was yet to respond to a Malawi News questionnaire as of last week.
But the facts are as follows:
~ following the judgment of Kapindu on 30 May 2022, dismissing the judicial review proceedings by Msukwa and Nair on 3 June 2022, the Bureau resubmitted an application for consent to prosecute the two. On 13 June 2022, the Bureau cautioned Msukwa and was planning to take him to court to be charged when it was served with an exparte order of stay of criminal proceedings pending appeal granted by the Supreme Court. The interpartes hearing occurred on 26 June 2022, and the Bureau challenged the stay order.
The matter is now awaiting judgment by Justice Frank Kapanda.
Nair also applied for a stay of the enforcement of the judgment of Kapindu pending appeal, and in a ruling dated 17 June 2022, Kapindu stayed the enforcement of his judgement. And this is the situation as of now.
In a related but different case, High Court Judge Kenyatta Nyirenda dismissed an application by the ACB asking him to recuse himself from a case in which Malawi Police Service former inspector general George Kainja is challenging his arrest.
In his ruling, Nyirenda gave eleven reasons why he would not recuse himself. Among other grounds, he faulted the ACB for failing to cite any law under which the application for recusal was brought.
Nyirenda observed that although the ACB had claimed that the matter was sensitive in an open court, it failed to produce supporting evidence when the case was moved to his chambers.
Nyirenda said an application for a judge’s recusal could tarnish the judge’s reputation and cause psychological, mental and emotional pain because judges are also human.
“It is, therefore, imperative that a party thinking of making an application for recusal of a judge must not bring it unless he or she is definite that there are good grounds for doing so and, more importantly, he or she has legally relevant facts to prove the allegations to the high standard of proof set by the law.
“The practice of making unsubstantiated allegations of bias must be left to Luhangas and Longwes of this world and people of their ilk,” he said.
Nyirenda, therefore, dismissed the application.
What can we make of all this? The temptation is to read too much in the interview and this latest judgement.
In my view, the smart thing that we, the ordinary un-corrupt folks, should do is watch and wait.
However, given the stakes, we should closely monitor all affected parties. This is imperative because corruption fights back, and if we aren’t careful, we will inadvertently clap hands for wizards.
To set the full context, let’s start with the genesis of the Bureau.
First, although the ACB was established in December 1995 under Section 13 of the Constitution of Malawi, its first DG, Gilton Chiwaula, officially took up his position on 1 March 1997.
That notwithstanding, the Bureau only commenced operations on 9 February 1998. Meaning that a lot to do with the Bureau is beyond the Bureau’s control. This has not changed to date.
Secondly, Gilton Chiwaula was succeeded by other DGs, viz. Alexious Nampota, Gustav Kaliwo, Rezine Mzikamanda, Lucas Kondowe and Reyneck Matemba. Even though corruption was and has always been a constant feature, we have never been this excited about the ACB.
If truth be told, under these learned gentlemen, the ACB was happily preoccupied with arresting a chief on subsidies-related bribes here, a head teacher on account of leaking PSLC exams there, or an odd FAM official yonder and such inconsequential fellas.
ACB never targeted big guns in the Executive Branch. Opposition members, yes, but not the crooks in the Executive Branch unless they were convenient scapegoats.
To the discomfort and chagrin of the powers that be, Madam Chizuma has challenged and changed this. This takes guts.
Try this for size: check the list of her predecessors. From that list, name any DG who dared shake up the tree.
Chizuma’s tenure is exceptional because of her remarkable doggedness in pursuing and seeking to prosecute current corruption. Hence, if anyone expected her to enjoy smooth sailing, they were grossly mistaken and should not hold their misguided naivety against her.
Secondly, there is also the ubiquity of Sattar’s tentacles. Per my recollection, no previous DG has had someone within their team actively playing to “score own goals,” i.e. sabotaging the ACB’s cases. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.
This, in my view, explains the generous and not one, not two, not three, but eleven grounds gifted to the judge; the ACB seemingly wanted to recuse himself in the case discussed above but inexplicably blessed him eleven grounds on which to throw out the application, with costs!
Only two types of lawyers could do this:
(a) a rank amateur or
(b) a saboteur.
Feel free to pick one.
I will therefore conclude with a piece of advice for Madam Chizuma. It doesn’t matter how many goals Messi or Mbape, or Neimar score against an opposing team IF PSG’s defence is bent and intent on gifting the other team eleven own goals. That match will still be lost. Once beaten twice shy, I hope we have seen the last of this.
As to whether the glass is half full or half empty, I don’t really care. Fill it up. Let it overflow with justice.
Follow us on Twitter:
