Defense lawyers Kalekeni Kaphale, Fostino Maele, and Powell Nkhutabasa have rejected the reinstatement of former Finance Minister Joseph Mwanamvekha and former Secretary to the Treasury Cliff Chiunda as accused persons in the ongoing IMF misreporting case. The lawyers argue that the State’s move to bring back the two into the case lacks factual grounding and is irregular.
In an interview, Kaphale expressed concern, stating that the State cannot simply reinstate the accused without submitting a new affidavit that justifies the basis for their inclusion. He emphasized that any such move would require new evidence to support the fresh charges against Mwanamvekha and Chiunda.
Kaphale also questioned the omission of former General Counsel and Reserve Bank Secretary Samuel Maliton from the case. “Is it because he is from the central region, while Mwanamvekha, Kabambe, and the others are from the southern region?” Kaphale asked, suggesting potential regional bias in the decision.
Judge Kapindu, presiding over the case, echoed Kaphale’s concerns, querying the State’s reasoning for bringing the matter back. He reminded the court that the State Prosecutors had previously confirmed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had authorized the discharge of the accused persons. After a brief adjournment to confirm with the DPP, the prosecutors affirmed that the DPP had indeed approved the discharge. The judge questioned why the case was being resurrected when the DPP had already filed a discharge certificate with the court.
Judge Kapindu underscored the importance of the DPP’s authority, noting that the position holds significant weight in legal proceedings. “The DPP is a very senior position and is the ultimate authority with regard to prosecution in Malawi,” the judge said, highlighting the seriousness with which the court treats the DPP’s signature and decisions.
As of now, the Financial Crimes Court has not set a date for the next hearing, and the accused are yet to enter their plea.
This development raises questions about the State’s legal strategy and whether it can substantiate its decision to reinstate the accused in this high-profile case.
