High Court Judge Redson Kapindu has advised the State to be serious and avoid wasting time in a case involving former Reserve Bank of Malawi (RBM) governor Dalitso Kabambe and former deputy governor Henry Mathanga.
The two are accused of misreporting Malawi’s Net International Reserves and Gross Reserve Liabilities to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the period spanning 2018– 2019.
The alleged misreporting is said to have resulted in the IMF cancelling $108 million under the Extended Credit Facility (ECF).
On Wednesday, lead prosecutor in the case Dzikondianthu Malunda informed the court that after the discharge of former Cabinet minister Joseph Mwanamvekha, the charge sheet remains with Kabambe and Mathanga, whose charges of fraud and abuse of office have not changed.
However, as the judge wanted to proceed with the matter, the State informed the court that it was not ready to parade witnesses, forcing Kapindu to advise the State to be “serious with the matter”.
“The State should put its house in order for the case so that they should not waste the court’s time,” Kapindu said.
Malunda offered an apology.
Meanwhile, one of the lawyers representing Kabambe and Mathanga, Powell Mkhutabasa, said they were ready to defend their clients.
“We were ready for the commencement of the matter, but it seems the State is not ready,” he said.
Earlier, the two accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them.
The particulars of the case are that Kabambe and Mathanga “committed, between June 2018 and September 2019, an arbitrary act when they flouted the terms and conditions of the Technical Memorandum of Understanding” between IMF and Malawi.
The charges further say the act by the two was tantamount to abuse of office as they prejudiced the rights of the Malawi Government to access the $108 million under ECF.
Kapindu has adjourned the matter to April, 2024 during which he will hear arguments for three days.
When discharging Mwanamvekha last month, the judge noted that the State had conceded having no requisite evidence against the politician and that based on the same, chances of a conviction against him were unrealistic.
