The High Court in Lilongwe has varied Vice President Saulos Chilima’s bail conditions, saying it is not necessary for the state to keep his passport and for Chilima to appear before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) every three months.
Justice Redson Kapindu made the ruling this afternoon following an application by Chilima for the court to vary his bail conditions because of his status in society.
Kapindu said Chilima’s passport should be handed over to President Lazarus Chakwera since the veep’s duties are delegated by the president and Chilima is required to inform the president whenever he wants to travel.
The court has also ordered that if the Vice President wants to travel, he should be informing the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the court 72 hours before departure, stating destination and date of departure and return.
Kapindu has also ruled that there is no need for Chilima to report to ACB offices once every three months because his position entails that he cannot flee, fail to avail for trial, interfere with state witnesses and intimidate the community among other factors.
The judge added that the argument by the state that ACB would not know whether Chilima is still in Malawi or not is strange.
In the case, the defence is also questioning the ACB’s ability to prosecute the matter arguing that the bureau vets public contracts and is prosecuting a case involving the very same contracts it approved.
Kapindu is expected to deal with the issue when the matter resumes in court on 25 August 2023.
Chilima is accused of receiving payments amounting to $280,000 (about K300 million) and other items from British businessman Zuneth Sattar between March 2021 and October 2021 in return for awarding Malawi Defense Force and Malawi Police Service contracts to two companies connected to Sattar.
Chilima is facing three charges of corrupt practices by a public officer contrary to Section 24(1) of the Corrupt Practices Act (CPA) and two charges of receiving advantage for using influence in regard to contracts contrary to Section 29 (1) (b) of the CPA.
He is also answering a count of failing to make a full report to a police officer or an officer of the ACB that an advantage had been corruptly given contrary to Section 36 (1) of the CPA.
