Former vice president Cassim Chilumpha has dragged the Attorney General (AG), as principal legal officer for the Malawi Government, to court and is demanding K24 billion in damages over his arrest on April 28 2006 while he was serving as State Vice President.
He also wants the government to pay him for prosecuting him for 17 years.
AG Thabo Chakaka Nyirenda has since said he will defend the claim.
- Advertisement -
According to court documents that The Daily Times has seen, Chilumpha is seeking K6 billion as punitive/exemplary damages; K4 billion as damages for inconvenience; K5 billion being damages for malicious prosecution; and K4 billion as damages for defamation.
- Advertisement -
The Assembly for Democracy and Development leader is also demanding K5 billion as Common Law damages and compensation, as per sections 41(3) 46(4) of the Constitution, for the violation of his rights as provided under sections 41 and 42 of the Republican Constitution.
Further, Chilumpha is claiming money expended, accrued and currently owed as fees for his legal practitioners under Criminal Cause Number 13 of 2006 and Constitutional Cause Number 5 of 2006.
The money has to be assessed.
He is also demanding that the sum expended as his bail bond be assessed.
- Advertisement -
According to the court summons, the Government of Malawi, on or about April 28 2006, arrested Chilumpha and subsequently held him in police custody at various police stations and prisons.
It says Chilumpha was charged with the offences of treason, in line with Section 38 of the Penal Code, and conspiracy to murder, in line with Section 227 of the Penal Code, under Criminal Cause Number 13 of 2006.
He was eventually granted bail by the High Court of Malawi on or around May 15 2006.
“The claimant [Chilumpha] resultingly remained accused of the above offences for the period of 17 years and two months, until he was finally discharged as an accused person by Order of the High Court of Malawi on the 18th of October 2023, despite stem opposition from the defendant [AG] at the time.
“The failure on the part of the prosecution to have the matter heard and/or concluded over such an unreasonably long period was not only unfair and unjust, but also cruel, inhumane and greatly infringed on the claimant’s rights as guaranteed under sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution of Malawi, among other rights,” court documents read.
It adds that the AG’s unreasonable actions throughout the period have clearly indicated a malicious intention on their part, aimed at causing Chilumpha difficulty, discomfort and inconvenience while ensuring no finality to the issue at hand.
“By reason of the above, the claimant has suffered immense damage, injury and loss,” the court document says.
The case has since been assigned to High Court Judge Rachel Sikwese.
Asked for a comment on the matter, Chakaka Nyirenda said he would defend the matter.
“I will defend the matter as there were good grounds for arrest and prosecution,” Chakaka Nyirenda said.
On October 18 last year, High Court Judge Ruth Chinangwa set free Chilumpha and businessperson Yusuf Matumula, who were answering treason cases.
Chilumpha, who was at loggerheads with the then president Bingu wa Mutharika, was arrested alongside Matumula in 2006 on accusations that they were attempting to assassinate Mutharika.
The two were accused of plotting to overthrow Mutharika’s government by allegedly hiring men to assassinate him and key members of his government between January and April 2006.
In her ruling, Chinangwa agreed with the accused that the State lacked willingness to prosecute the case.
“In this case, the State has shown no willingness to prosecute the matter because the matter has remained dormant for 15 years. Apart from that, the State is also asking the court for a further 90 days to [see] if at all they [are] to continue prosecuting the matter.
“It seems that this matter was a forgotten cause for the State. If anything, it speaks volumes on how the prosecution manages the prosecution of its cases. To say the least, this matter has been poorly managed. It is only lawful to have the matter discharged in the circumstances,” Chinangwa said.
She, therefore, proceeded to discharge the accused under Section 247(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code.
“Any aggrieved party has the right to appeal within 30 days from the date of pronouncement,” she said.
