Norman Chisale, state clash in court

By Isaac Salima:

The State and lawyers representing Norman Chisale, an aide to former president Peter Mutharika, clashed in court Tuesday over the reasons for the State’s two applications to have the accused’s property forfeited.

The case concerns a plea by the State to have property belonging to Chisale forfeited to the government on allegations that it was illegally obtained and could be proceeds of financial crime.

The property includes vehicles and residential and commercial buildings.

- Advertisement -

In the High Court in Blantyre Tuesday, Judge Anneline Kanthambi heard arguments on preliminary objections filed by both parties in the civil case, which is being pursued under the Financial Crimes Act.

The law allows the State to pursue a civil case while the criminal case is ongoing.

During the hearing, Chisale’s lawyer, Chancy Gondwe, presented several arguments, arguing that they warranted the dismissal of the case.

Gondwe questioned why the State had filed two applications for the same matter.

“The first application for forfeiture was made in July 2022 and another was filed in October 2024. The first one was not prosecuted, yet you filed another. This is an abuse of the court process and the case should be dismissed,” Gondwe argued.

He further questioned why the court was entertaining the second application, given that the first application had already been addressed, with High Court Judge Ivy Kamanga, who had previously been handling the case, allegedly having made a determination on its direction.

The lawyer claimed that Judge Kamanga had referred the matter to the office of the Chief Justice for certification as a constitutional issue.

“She [Justice Kamanga] referred the matter to the Chief Justice in December 2022 so that the case could be certified as a constitutional issue.

“Two years later, she issued a ruling which contradicted her first decision. So, what we know is that the matter was referred to the Chief Justice and the State’s application [for forfeiture] should therefore be dismissed,” Gondwe argued.

Chief State Advocate Pirirani Masanjala countered, arguing that the State had not filed a new application but had merely issued a notice regarding the same case.

“The first case was not heard and we have only filed a notice for the same case. It is the same case, same court number, same court, same parties, same sworn statements and the same evidence. Nothing has changed. We are just waiting for the court’s determination,” Masanjala explained.

He further argued that the defence was attempting to delay the case.

“This matter could have been concluded by now, as the property is devaluing,” he said.

Judge Kanthambi adjourned the case until November 20, 2024, when she is expected to deliver her ruling on the arguments.

Chisale’s property, valued at approximately K1.7 billion, was put under a preservation order in 2021 on suspicion that it had been acquired through criminal activities.

The State now seeks to permanently take custody of the assets in order to sell them and recover the funds.

Gondwe questioned why the State had filed two applications for the same matter.

“The first application for forfeiture was made in July 2022 and another was filed in October 2024. The first one was not prosecuted, yet you filed another. This is an abuse of the court process and the case should be dismissed,” Gondwe argued.

He further questioned why the court was entertaining the second application, given that the first application had already been addressed, with High Court Judge Ivy Kamanga, who had previously been handling the case, allegedly having made a determination on its direction.

The lawyer claimed that Judge Kamanga had referred the matter to the office of the Chief Justice for certification as a constitutional issue.

“She [Justice Kamanga] referred the matter to the Chief Justice in December 2022 so that the case could be certified as a constitutional issue.

“Two years later, she issued a ruling which contradicted her first decision. So, what we know is that the matter was referred to the Chief Justice and the State’s application [for forfeiture] should therefore be dismissed,” Gondwe argued.

Chief State Advocate Pirirani Masanjala countered, arguing that the State had not filed a new application but had merely issued a notice regarding the same case.

“The first case was not heard and we have only filed a notice for the same case. It is the same case, same court number, same court, same parties, same sworn statements and the same evidence. Nothing has changed. We are just waiting for the court’s determination,” Masanjala explained.

He further argued that the defence was attempting to delay the case.

“This matter could have been concluded by now, as the property is devaluing,” he said.

Judge Kanthambi adjourned the case until November 20, 2024, when she is expected to deliver her ruling on the arguments.

Chisale’s property, valued at approximately K1.7 billion, was put under a preservation order in 2021 on suspicion that it had been acquired through criminal activities.

The State now seeks to permanently take custody of the assets in order to sell them and recover the funds.