The Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA) sees more good than harm in plans to introduce an independent National Prosecution Authority (NPA).
This is in sharp contrast to what the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) said when its officials appeared before Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament members who heard from FIA officials Thursday.
FIA Director General Jean Priminta, the authority’s director of legal affairs Edwin Mtonga and its public relations manager Masautso Ebere appeared before committee members, who are consulting stakeholders on whether the country needs the NPA.
Before citing some advantages, Mtonga said the prosecuting agency would be effective because it would, among other things, have a more organised structure, specialised officers and financial autonomy without going through other structures to get funds.
- Advertisement -
“Having a National Prosecuting Authority will make prosecution more organised and structured. It will give you proper conditions of service; it will give you proper equipment and processes.
- Advertisement -
“It also gives you [an opportunity to know] how the decision is going to be made and how long they are supposed to make a decision. So, it means [being] more organised and structured,” Mtonga told the committee.
On the disadvantages, he said having the NPA could mean making amendments to the Republican Constitution by coming up with a piece of legislation, something that may not be easy to do.
He also said it might bring some rivalry and discontentment, as observed in Zimbabwe— since the authority has drawn lessons from Zimbabwe, South Africa and Zambia— where independent prosecuting agencies have proven to have advantages and disadvantages.
“Centralisation may bring discontent because some law enforcement agencies, or other individual departments, may think that maybe the prosecutor-general may be compromised when it comes to high-profile cases or political cases,” he added.
- Advertisement -
In her contribution during the meeting, Priminta said, at the moment, FIA provides intelligence to various authorities depending on cases such authorities deal with, adding that the relationship with all of them is good.
“Currently, there are no issues between the FIA and the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions]’s office; similarly, with such other agencies,” she said.
Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament Chairperson Albert Mbawala said the committee had taken note of FIA’s contribution and is expected to meet other stakeholders before it recommends that the country should have NPA or not.
“We are gathering information on the proposed establishment of the National Prosecution Authority that will basically take over from what we currently have as the Director of Public Prosecutions,” Mbawala said.
The committee has already met ACB officials and is expected to meet the DPP and Malawi Police Service officials.
When ACB officials engaged committee members, the bureau’s deputy director general Hillary Chilomba said no research has been conducted to show that the current system of prosecuting cases is faulty.
He said when people are introducing something, there must be research done to unearth any mischief.
Chilomba said some jurisdictions such as South Africa are even contemplating moving away from the NPA arrangement.
“We, as ACB, are saying more research needs to be done because whenever you are introducing something, research must be done, which must bring what we call a mischief. In other words, it must indicate what problem is here.
“Currently, we are saying that we have not seen that research paper, where they were supposed to show the problem. So, as at now, our position is that at least we know the mischief. So, the current arrangement we have, we think, is the best,” Chilomba said.
He was quick to note that, if adopted, the NPA would bring its own challenges, saying it would mean that all the prosecution would be done by the new institution and that the ACB might be left with corruption prevention activities and investigations only.
