Bakili Muluzi hits the wall

Nov 03, 2015 Politics 125
Advertisement
Malawi24
Bakili Muluzi & Peter Mutharika

The ex Malawi President continues to move with files in court as Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda has opted to refer back to the High Court his application or a  constitutional review on his MK 1.7 Billion corruption case.

Bakili Muluzi together with Violet Whisky are answering the charges of corruption.

The two wanted the Supreme Court to direct that the High Court, sitting as a constitutional court, should determine that the charges were politically motivated and, therefore, should be dismissed.

Muluzi’s lawyer, Lawyer Tamando Chokotho applied to have the matter referred for constitutional review, alleging that the whole trial against him perverts the Constitution in many respects

bakili Muluzi
Muluzi (R) has his request reffered back to High court.

But Nyirenda has since faulted the High Court for referring the matter to the highest court before weighing the arguments.

“This was a misdirection on the part of the court. The learned judge was supposed to decide whether it is necessary or not necessary for the matter to be submitted to the Chief Justice for further consideration. For all these reasons, this matter is returned to the original court for the learned judge to determine as he might consider appropriate,” the Chief Justice said in his ruling on Thursday.

The Chief Justice argues that the ex President has remained of the view that the process resulted in violation of the Constitution because the former Attorney General and the former Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) conduct, in attempting to fabricate evidence against Muluzi, undermined his right to a fair trial under Section 42(2) (f) of the Constitution.

Ironically, Muluzi blames late President Bingu wa Mutharika to have been trying to prosecute him politically with the differences the two had.

 

According to Muluzi, Mutharika’s conduct in instructing the Director of ACB to arrest him for political reasons and the subsequent arrest and consent to prosecute by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) undermined the independence of the DPP under Section 101(2) of the Constitution.

“These provisions read together, raise three issues. The first and straightforward issue is the composition of the High Court when hearing a matter that has been determined to be within the province of the sections,” said Nyirenda in the ruling.

The case has been in court since 2009 and its span had been prolonged as the ex leader has been in hospital with a spinal problem.