LILONGWE (Papious Liwonde, Malawi NewsNow) –Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee has summoned Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) to quiz them on the delays of not his K1.7billion corruption.
The committee chair Lewis Chakwantha confirmed that they want to question ACB on the progress of Muluzi case and also cashgate corruption trials.
Muluzi is jointly on trial at the High Court with his then personal assistant Violet Whisky on criminal charges under the Corrupt Practices Act.
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.
Chief Justice Andrew Nyirenda said Muluzi is 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.
Muluzi also argued that former President Bingu wa Mutharika’s conduct in using criminal political reasons contravened his responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution and to provide Executive leadership in the interest of national unity in accordance with the Constitution as provided for in Section 88 (1) of the Constitution.
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 second issue he mentioned is the material determination of a matter as being within the ambit of the provisions while the third issue is the procedure that must be complied with to eventually place the matter before the constitutional panel of the High Court.
Muluzi’s case started in 2009 and has now taken about six years due to numerous adjournments mainly attributed to the former president’s illness and objections from the defense.
Nyirenda referred back to the High Court to determine whether or not the case should be certified to go for a constitutional review.