By Emmanuel Simpokolwe:
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) former director general Reyneck Matemba Monday frowned at procedures the graft-bursting body used to bring two witnesses from the United Kingdom (UK)’s National Crime Agency in his alleged corruption case.
Initially, Matemba was alleged to have received $10,000 from United Kingdom-based businessperson Zuneth Sattar to influence the award of contracts to his companies.
But the graft-busting body amended the charges and now accuses Matemba of failing to declare his interest in a board meeting which reviewed and granted a no-objection for the Malawi Police Service’s food ration contract, worth $7,875,000.00, to be given to Xaviar Limited— which was engaged to supply 350,000 food ration packs.
However, Matemba said ACB did not follow the right procedure when bringing the witnesses, saying procedure demands that the Attorney General writes the Home Office, which is the central authority of Mutual Legal Assistance in the UK, to facilitate the sharing of evidence among nations.
- Advertisement -
According to ACB officials, they relied on Section 5(1) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, which provides for informal arrangements between law enforcement agencies when sharing intelligence or information.
Matemba told reporters outside the court Monday that his request for guidance from the court was based on sections 6 and 9 of the same Act, which address the issue of how evidence is transmitted and witnesses are used.
“That has to go through the Office of the Attorney General and not any other [office]. The ACB has conceded that what they shared was not evidence but intelligence but we are not here to receive intelligence in court. We get evidence in court and that has to be done formally using that Act.
“Why should they disregard that Act when, on the other hand, they seem to be following the same Act. You might have heard from the State [that] they made a request under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
“On the other hand, they are saying we can still proceed even without [using provisions of] that Act. So, what I was saying is that, ‘What are you doing? What are you saying to the court? Can you say one thing? Is this Act necessary or it is not necessary’?” Matemba said.
According to Matemba, he is the one who signed the agreement between the ACB and NCA and that what they agreed was sharing of intelligence and not evidence.
ACB Principal Legal and Prosecution Officer Golda Rapozo said, when it comes to witnesses, anybody can be a witness and that it is not up to the accused to choose who can testify or not.
She said, according to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, any person can be a witness.
Rapozo said the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act does not stop the ACB, or any other law enforcement agency, from using informal channels to either collect evidence or invite witnesses.
She said the ACB went through the AG’s office to request for formal use of evidence but that the AG is taking long to give responses.
“So, knowing that the formal channels are taking a while, we also realised that it is possible to use informal channels so we pivoted to use informal channels and the informal channels worked,” Rapozo said.
Financial Crimes Court Judge Violet Chipawo is today expected to give her ruling on whether ACB can parade the two witnesses from the UK.
