CHAPTER TWO: The Presidency

DISCOURSE ON MALAWI STATE CAPTURE: Situation Report

This is going to be a long process. Chapter by redacted Chapter as promised

The proposition that removal of presidential immunity is central to the fight against corruption needs to be examined within the contextual mandates and procedures of accountability institutions. All term presidents[1]; Kamuzu Banda, Bakili Muluzi, Bingu Mutharika and Peter Mutharika have faced criminal charges or allegations but this has been after they left office, although it should be acknowledged that President Peter Mutharika faced charges after leaving the office of Minister and before assuming the presidency. The withdrawal of charges against President Peter Mutharika after he ascended to the Presidency supports the proposition. Yet, the failure to hold Presidents accountable after leaving office has not been shown to be on account of the immunity they enjoyed while in office. It may well be that effective accountability processes undertaken against a President after leaving office would have as effective deterrence as lack of immunity while in office. However, politics have indeed compromised prosecution of a President after leaving office.

Prosecution is not a political process; it is a judicial process even if at times it is used for social engineering. The Constitution provides that even “in the resolution of political disputes the provisions of this Constitution shall be regarded as the supreme arbiter and ultimate source of authority”[2] and the Constitution has given authority for “interpreting, protecting and enforcing this Constitution and all laws”[3] to the Judiciary. Thus, when or if professionals refuse to defer judicial matters to politics (no doubt upon pain of dismissal), or until Malawi society develops a milieu in which leaders refrain from importing politics into judicial matters, the removal immunity from a sitting President will have little effect.

President Kamuzu Banda

It must be understood that after President Kamuzu Banda left office, several avenues were opened to obtain accountability for his exercise of authority as President.

“First to be targeted for dispossession or nationalisation by the present government was the huge and largely successful trading conglomerate, the Press Trust, which until 1995 was widely believed to be Dr Banda's private business enterprise. It was Aleke Banda, Finance Minister, who once headed Press Corporation Limited, who convinced parliament that Dr Banda fraudulently turned to personal ownership an organisation founded with public funds. To this effect, he moved a motion in parliament to reconstruct the Press Trust Act. Naturally, the motion received heavy protests from the opposition Malawi Congress Party”[4].

 Second, in 1995 the Director of Public Prosecutions filed charges of conspiracy to murder. Third, he was charged with fraud of about K37 million. The Irish Times reported “Malawi's former "life president", Dr Kamuzu Banda, who ruled with an iron fist for three decades until 1994, was charged in the High Court yesterday with fraud involving more than ￡6 million”[5]. However, it became clear that the old and frail President Banda with failing memory would not be able to sit through a trial. Hordes of ‘Kamuzu’s Mbumba’, the women members of the opposition Malawi Congress Party lobbied the Director of Public Prosecutions to spare the President. However, on the basis that the judicial process would provide a healing for the nation, the prosecution proceeded without the President sitting in court. A lot of politics were involved, to the extent that the initial activities on the possible litigation, including consultations overs eases, were done by a team of Cabinet Ministers. When the Director of Public Prosecutions was appointed to replace the Chief Public Prosecutor who had just been appointed a judge, the Director refused to take instructions from the team of Ministers, opening a feud between him and the Ministers that never ceased until after the ouster of the Director (It was a 7-member Legal Committee of Cabinet including one who was not a lawyer who led the 3-member crusade against the Director). But the judicial process had to go on. The Los Angeles Times reported why the Director of Public Prosecutions felt so:

Less than a year after Banda was ousted in Malawi’s first multi-party elections since independence in 1964, the quirky tyrant and his top aides are on trial here on charges of ordering the grisly murder of four political rivals in 1983. Banda has avoided being hauled into court so far. His lawyers say his blood pressure is erratic, and the strain could cause a stroke. Frail and ailing, he remains under house arrest in one of his 13 former palaces and plush residences. But the case marks a watershed for Africa, as well as this impoverished nation of 9.7 million people. Banda was one of the turbulent continent’s most durable despots. Now the aging autocrat is among the few to face justice for the ravages of his reign.

 “This trial will provide a national catharsis,” said Kamudoni Nyasulu, the chief prosecutor. “It’s the main reason we’re doing it. It’s more than a trial of these men. It’ll show how the system operated in the past. And it will, I hope, prevent this from happening again… “If I meet Banda, I would kill him,” said James Gadama, whose father, Aaron, was one of the four politicians clubbed to death with hammers and crowbars by police 12 years ago. “I want revenge.”

 Others just want to see the former martinet cut to size. The death penalty is mandatory for murder here, but the prosecutor expects a presidential pardon if Banda is convicted. “I don’t think people are interested in seeing him punished,” Nyasulu said. Malawi’s approach is in sharp contrast to those in most of Africa[6].

The justification for the judicial process was also captured by the Mail & Guardian:

THE Malawi Supreme Court on Thursday threw out an appeal by the state in its attempt to reopen murder and conspiracy charges against former president-for-life Hastings Kamuzu Banda…The ruling ended a three-year-long judicial process that chief state prosecutor Kamudoni Nyasulu described as “a catharsis” for a young democratic nation that suffered three decades of dictatorship under Banda. “We have to accept the judgment. But it has been a cleansing for the nation, similar to hearings of South Africa’s truth commission”, he said[7].

 Fourth, Government contemplated a civil case involving acquisition of land and claims for rentals that President Banda had made on Government owned land. This and the K37 million fraud charge prompted the Government to make inquiries on his foreign bank accounts and investments[8].

However, upon acquittal on the conspiracy to murder charges, President Bakili Muluzi asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to also drop the fraud charges. “Nyasulu added that he may drop fraud charges against Banda and two aides, who allegedly used state funds to build a private business empire. Malawian President Bakili Muluzi last week made an appeal for the charges to be dropped in the interest of national reconciliation. ‘It was a request, not an order. I haven’t decided yet’, Nyasulu said. There has not been any formal withdrawal of the charges for fraud.

President Bakili Muluzi

It must be pointed out at the outset that President Bakili Muluzi, between 2005 and 2009, was a frequent litigant in the High Court, prosecuting or defending various civil and criminal matters. This explains some of the discrepancies in the detail sometimes mixed up in media reports.

The politics involved in his case of alleged embezzlement of donor funding need to be put in perspective. In 2002 in the second term of his presidency, President Muluzi vigorously attempted to have the Constitution amended so that he could run for a third term. This failed and he instead imposed on his political party Dr. Bingu Mutharika as a presidential candidate for the 2004 elections on the ticket of the United Democratic Front (UDF) despite that Bingu Mutharika was not a member of the party and in the 1994 presidential elections he had contested on the ticket of his own party; the United Party (UP)[9].

In 2005 Bingu Mutharika formed the Democratic Progressive Party and over 70 Members of Parliament joined his party prompting the remnants of UDF and the opposition futile attempts to remove the members who had joined the DPP from their seats in Parliament for having ‘crossed’ the floor.[10]

In November 2006 President Mutharika appointed members of a new Electoral Commission but the parties represented in Parliament: United Democratic Front (UDF), the Malawi Congress  Party (MCP), the Alliance for Democracy(AFORD), the Peoples’ Progressive Movement (PPM) and the Peoples’ Transformation Party (PETRA) challenged this appointment in civil case number 182 of 2006; and by the consent of all the appointments were withdrawn in January 2007. After some consultations in March 2007 President Mutharika appointed members of the Electoral Commission. Bakili Muluzi for the United Democratic Front and John Tembo for the Malawi Congress Party again unsuccessfully challenged these appointments in the court case S v President of the Republic of Malawi [2008] MWHC 2.

On 11 March 2007 Bakili Muluzi announced that he would seek the nomination of the United Democratic Front (UDF) to stand as its presidential candidate in the 2009 elections. On 17 March 2008 the Anti-Corruption Bureau announced that it intended to prosecute Muluzi for allegedly diverting about 11 million dollars of donor money into his personal account. Kennedy Makwangwala, the Secretary-General of the UDF, denounced this as "political persecution". On April 24, 2008, a UDF convention chose Muluzi as the party's 2009 presidential candidate. In May 2008, Mutharika said that Muluzi was trying to remove him from office by depriving the DPP MPs of their seats. To press its demand for the removal of the DPP MPs, the opposition had refused to debate any government bills. Eight prominent associates of Muluzi were arrested shortly afterward in connection with the alleged plot to overthrow Mutharika. When Muluzi returned from the United Kingdom on 25 May 2008, he was arrested at the airport in Lilongwe. The Director of Public Prosecutions urged the court to reject the bail application, stressing that treason was "a very serious offence which carries a heavy penalty". He said that investigations were continuing and expressed concern that they "would be jeopardised and evidence tampered with". Judge Joseph Manyumgwa granted Muluzi bail on 30 May 2008.[11]

In February 2009 Bakili Muluzi presented his nomination papers as the Presidential Candidate for the United Democratic Front. Speaking to Capital Radio on 22 February 2009, Muluzi accused the government of using intimidation against his presidential candidacy and warned that such conduct could lead to "problems". On 24 February 2009 the Anti-Corruption Bureau obtained a warrant of arrest against Bakili Muluzi on charges that he had defrauded Government of K1.7 billion donated funds. He was arrested and taken before the Blantyre Magistrate Court and granted bail. On 12 March 2009 he failed to enter plea on the 86 graft charges against him. Kalekeni Kaphale, a lawyer for Muluzi, asked for a delay, arguing that "this is the first time someone has been charged with such a volume of cases" in Malawi and that, since the defense had not seen the charges until early March, it needed "at least 14 days to study them to make proper responses".[12] 

On 20 March 2009 the Electoral Commission passed a judgement to bar Bakili Muluzi from running for the presidency for the third time. On 9 April 2009 Bakili Muluzi obtained leave to move for judicial review against the decision of the Electoral Commission rejecting him to stand as a presidential nominee of the United Democratic Front (UDF). The reason for the rejection given by the Electoral Commission, the respondent in the case, was that he had already served as President two terms.[13]

The reason was that he had already served as President for two consecutive terms as stipulated under Section 83(3) of the Constitution. The respondent further referred to the pre-constitution debates in the National Assembly and conferences which condemned life presidency and recommended limitation of presidential terms and also the post Constitution debates in Parliament, during the presidential tenure of the 1st applicant, attempting to introduce a third presidential term or an open term. Both of them were rejected in Parliament[14]

 After a full discussion of ‘term presidency’ and ‘a maximum of two consecutive terms’ the High Court sitting as a Constitutional Court held:

It is our judgment that the respondent’s determination did not infringe the political rights of the applicants. It was not unconstitutional or unreasonable. This application therefore, must fail in its entirety[15]

Bakili Muluzi and the UDF threw their support behind the candidacy of John Tembo, the President of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP).[16]

On 25 June 2009 the Anti-Corruption Bureau applied to the High Court to have the bail bond enhanced to K1.7 billion but the Court ordered bail bond at “50 million Kwacha not cash with two sufficient sureties in the sum of 10 million Kwacha each, not being cash”.[17]

Therefore, at this point, July 2009, there were two cases in court against Bakili Muluzi: the first resulting from his arrest of 25 May 2008 for treason in which the Director of Public Prosecutions urged the court to reject his bail application, stressing that treason was "a very serious offence which carries a heavy penalty"; and the second resulting from his arrest of 24 February 2009 for illicit enrichment in which his lawyer sought an adjournment before plea was taken on the ground that "this is the first time someone has been charged with such a volume of cases" in Malawi.

The first case is steeped in politics, but the second is purely criminal, a judicial process and should have been handled that way. The simple considerations in this second case are: did Bakili Muluzi receive donor funds, were they public funds and did he convert these funds to his own use? The information is that the funds were donated by Libya and Morocco. There must evidence to prove that Libya gave the money, a witness to prove that Morocco gave the money, witnesses to prove that Bakili Muluzi received this money, (and the same or) a witness to prove these were public funds; and finally a witness or witnesses or other evidence that will show that Bakili Muluzi converted this money to his own use. It is against this backdrop that one needs to examine what has transpired in court on this case from 2009 to 2020, a period of 11 years.

The examination shows that between 2009 and 2013 no significant action was taken to prosecute the case. However, in 2012 the Democratic Progressive Party announced that a brother to Bingu Mutharika, Peter Mutharika would be the presidential nominee for the party in the 2014 Presidential Elections. Bakili Muluzi’s son Atupele Muluzi was earmarked as the Presidential Candidate for the United Democratic Front. Between March and July 2012 there was political violence in Malawi. On 20 March 2012 the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported:

The son of Malawi's former President Bakili Muluzi has been arrested following two days of political violence in the capital, Lilongwe…He hopes to lead the United Democratic Front (UDF) founded by his father in elections due in 2014… The governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has selected Peter Mutharika, brother of the current president, as its candidate for the election… Bakili Muluzi won Malawi's first multiparty elections in 1994 and then handed power to Mr Mutharika after serving two terms. But the pair then fell out, with Mr Mutharika saying allies of Mr Muluzi were blocking his anti-corruption drive.[18]

Bakili Muluzi reacted very strong to this arrest. The Nation Newspaper reported:

Malawi’s former president Bakili Muluzi has cautioned President Bingu wa Mutharika against using police to intimidate perceived political opponents, saying it is affecting the respect Malawians have for the service… Muluzi said he was very disappointed with the turn of events 18 years into multiparty democracy, saying instead of providing transition to the young generation, Mutharika was imparting wrong image of democracy to the youth…” I am demanding that Atupele should be released forthwith…. He has become a political prisoner now. The police are holding him illegally and without any law backing them. That is unfortunate in a democracy” said Muluzi

Witnesses

 From March 2009 nothing happened in this case until in May 2013, four years later, when the first witness Victor Banda testified. The Anti-Corruption Bureau indicated that it would be calling over 30 witnesses in the case. When the case was called again on 15 January 2015, nearly two years later, the Anti-Corruption Bureau was not able to proceed, seeking an adjournment because their witness Victor Banda had gone for a medical treatment. There was cross examination of Banda in April 2016 but the cross examination failed in May 2016. Once again, the Anti-Corruption Bureau indicated that the witness was not ready having gone for medical treatment. Cross examination was completed in September 2016. Thus the first and only witness so far in the case only testified in May/June 2013 and was cross examined three years later in April and September 2016. This translates into four years between initial set for plea and the first testimony of the first witness; and three years for this witness who was cross examined three years after he had testified. The two adjournments when cross examination failed speak volumes to the professionalism and diligence in the prosecution of this case. They do not present evidence of political interference. As of 21 May 2020 out of the more than 30 witnesses only one has testified. Eleven (11) years one witness.

General case progression

From the above narrative, there were two cases: the first for treason and the second for embezzlement of donor funds from Libya and Morocco. The case under review here is that of embezzlement. In March 2009 Bakili Muluzi was due to take plea but his lawyer, Kalekeni Kaphale requested the Court for time to study the charges. Nothing substantive happened on the case other than a reshuffle of prosecutors three years later in June 2012 and examination of eligibility of lawyers. The first, and so far the only, witness started to testify I June 2013, four years from the first scheduled plea hearing. Nothing further happened.

On the political front, President Bingu Mutharika died in April 2012 and President Joyce Banda took over. Nothing happened in the case during her tenure as President, other than the opening testimony of the first witness which had been set down before President Joyce Banda took over Government. There were no politics involved in the case during her tenure. After elections in 2014 President Peter Mutharika took over Government from President Joyce Banda. In Jan 2015 the case was set down for April 2015

Before trial resumed, the defence made an ex parte application for a permanent stay of the proceedings and when the Judge indicated that he did not see any ground or justification for the application the defence insisted that the matter should be referred to the Chief Justice for certification to go to the Constitutional Court. Flustered, the Judge submitted the matter to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice found the process flawed and threw out the referral, returning the case to the original court in July 2015

Once again nothing happened until February 2016 when the case was set down for trial in April 2016 during which time the defence started to cross examine the first witness. However, when the case resumed on 6 May 2016 the lead prosecutor, the Deputy Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau recused himself from the case “on personal grounds”. The contract of a consultant prosecutor on the prosecution team also expired about this time. In June 2016 when the case was called for trial, this prosecutor, whose contract had been renewed, applied for an adjournment to review the charges. On more than one occasion the prosecution had conceded that some of the amounts included in the charge could not be supported by evidence of corrupt practices and the prosecutor felt that “the unavailability of some of the State witnesses necessitated the reviewing of the counts”

In September 2016 the defence finished cross examining the first witness. The prosecution said it was maintaining the charges as they had originally been drafted; and therefore the review had not changed anything. The defence applied that the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court to review the legality of section 32 of the Corrupt Practices Act.

Thus, from September 2016 nothing happened in the case until February 2018 when the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling dismissing the application of the defence and upholding the legality of section 32 of the Corrupt Practices Act. The defence appealed and applied for a stay of the proceedings which was granted. As of 1 July 2020 the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal had not yet set a date for the hearing of the appeal.

Fifteen years after the investigation opened in the embezzlement of donor funds, the case is still in court. Out of the fifteen (15) years only 3 weeks and 3 days were used productively for the testimony and cross examination of the first witness. Otherwise, fourteen (14) years and nine (9) months have gone to waste.

Adjournments

 When the Court reconvened in May 2013 David Nyamilandu, Deputy Director was leading a team of Anti-Corruption Bureau prosecutors comprising Clement Mwala and David Bandawe. One of Muluzi’s lawyers, Kalekeni Kaphale, contended that David Nyamilandu was ineligible to practise law in Malawi following a recent Constitutional Court ruling[19]. However, Justice Kamwambe dismissed the claim. The judge said the Muluzi legal team’s reliance on the Constitutional Court judgement was misplaced[20]. David Nyamilandu had in turn objected to Gaston Mwenelupembe joining the defence team on the grounds that Mwenelupembe had at one time prosecuted Muluzi as an Anti-Corruption Bureau prosecutor in the matter. The Judge also dismissed this objection as there was no evidence that Mwenelupembe had ever prosecuted Bakili Muluzi[21]. In June 2013 the first witness Victor Banda started to testify[22]. The Anti-Corruption Bureau contended that while Muluzi was president of Malawi, he was found to have been in control or possession of resources worth K1.7 billion reasonably suspected to have been acquired corruptly. The matter was adjourned on the application of the defence to review the testimony before it could start cross examination[23]. President Joyce Banda appointed Reyneck Matemba as Deputy Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in October 2013[24]. Nothing further happened in the case[25].

In May 2014 President Peter Mutharika won the Presidential elections and took over from President Joyce Banda. There is no evidence that President Joyce Banda ever referred to or had anything to do with the case. The case was continued on the superintendence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no evidence that either Director Justice Rezine Mzikamanda or Director of Public Prosecutions Bruno Kalemba were or had been influenced by any political considerations. The two officers and the prosecuting team of David Nyamilandu, Mwala and Bandawe must all, therefore, have been satisfied that there was a good case to go to court on the merits. Reyneck Matemba took over from David Nyamilandu, Bandawe retired. Clement Mwala remained on the prosecuting team of the Bakili Muluzi case.

President Peter Mutharika appointed Director Lucas Kondowe to replace Justice Rezine Mzikamanda. Subsequently, President Peter Mutharika also appointed Mary Kachale as Director of Public Prosecutions replacing Bruno Kalemba. This was another milestone to review the case; and if it had been instituted during the tenure of Directors Gustave Kaliwo or Alex Nampota on political motivation; it would have been discontinued at this point.

In January 2015 the case was called for hearing. The defence attempted to object to some documents tendered by the first witness but the Court dismissed the application. The Judge seriously cautioned the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Bakili Muluzi's defence lawyers for their lacklustre performance. The case was adjourned to 14 April 2015.

However, in circumstances that the Chief Justice lays out in his judgement, Judge Kamwambe suspended the hearing and submitted the case to the Chief Justice for referral to the Constitutional Court[26]. The issues for determination that were to be referred to the Constitutional Court included, among others, the following[27]:

the former deceased President’s conduct in using criminal proceedings to harass the Applicant for purely political reasons contravened his responsibility to defend and uphold the Constitution and to provide executive leadership in the interest of national unity in accordance with the Constitution as provided for in Section 88(1) of the Constitution.

 the former deceased President’s conduct in instructing the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to arrest the Applicant for political reasons and the subsequent arrest and consent to prosecute by the Director of Public Prosecutions, undermined the independence of the Director of the Public Prosecutions under Section 101(2) of the Constitution.

 Judge Kamwambe had not made any determination on these grounds.

The Chief Justice observed:

The original court must make a determination that the matter is one where the interpretation or application of the Constitution is necessary. In other words, there must be a determination by the original court about the necessity of the referral. On record is a ruling by the Honourable Judge in the original court. His Lordship was therefore aware, and rightly so, that he had to make a ruling on the application before him. The real issue is therefore not about the ruling but much about what happened and what the ruling says. 

 What I am curious about is whether these were summons seeking referral pursuant to section 9(2) and (3) of the Courts Act or was it merely an application for stay of the proceedings. Further, reading through the summons one gets a distinct impression that the application was intended to be an end in itself. The orders sought do not seek that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for certification. 

 The summons simply do not speak for a referral. On the contrary, what is sought is a permanent stay of the proceedings for being an abuse of the court process, a rather strange prayer I must say. Where a prayer is premised on abuse of court process, it would invariably be for dismissal of an action and not for a stay of the action.

 The summons was filed on 8th April, 2015 and on the same day it was placed before the learned Judge who made the following observation...Despite this ruling and setting down the matter for 23rd April, 2015, the court sat the following day, 9th April, 2015. The court started by making the following observation...Mr. Chokotho then addressed the court. It would have been interesting to quote the whole of Mr. Chokotho’s submission but I believe what led the court below to make a rather flustered and mixed up ruling is when counsel submitted:

 “Our presence is not for determination of the summons per se as the matters raised by our summons are of a constitutional nature. Section 9(3) gives sole discretion for determining whether a matter is constitutional to the Chief Justice. Once a matter has arisen that may relate to the application or interpretation of Constitution, the court would make a referral.”

 After further observations the Chief Justice declined to make a referral of the case to the Constitutional Court and ordered that the case be returned to the original court[28].

In the meantime, around November 2015 there were rumours that the Government wanted the case to be discontinued. Responding to the rumours the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee said his committee did not know anything on the matter of withdrawing the case. He further said that the Director of Public Prosecutions had to convince and give reasonable statements to Parliament on whether to withdraw the case[29]. Nonetheless, in February 2016 the case was set down for hearing for 11 – 22 April 2016[30]. When proceedings started the State indicated that the first prosecution witness, Victor Banda, was unavailable for cross examination because he had a medical appointment at Embangweni in Mzimba where he resided[31]. Over K100 million had been deducted from the K1.7 billion charges against former president Bakili Muluzi and his former personal assistant Violet Whiskey after the first prosecution witness, Victor Banda, had agreed that the money should not be part of the cumulative figure as there was no indication it was corruptly acquired[32].  On April 19 the prosecutors applied to the court for a split trial to have Muluzi and his co-accused, Lyness Violet Whiskey, who was taken ill while in the dock on 18 April, tried separately. However, the State withdrew its application following communication from the defence that Whiskey was fit to stand trial. But when trial resumed the next day, the lead prosecutor, Deputy Director Reyneck Matemba did not appear for court. The State immediately sought another adjournment of the case, a thing that apparently did not amuse the presiding judge[33].

When the court reconvened on 6 May 2016, however, the witness Victor Banda was again ‘unavailable’. The lead prosecutor Deputy Director Reyneck Matemba applied that he should be recused from the case on personal grounds. The media reported that Matemba made a very emotional application, fighting tears as they swelled in his eyes. Deputy Director Matemba specifically told the court that his reasons for recusal had nothing to do with the accused Bakili Muluzi or Lyness Violet Whisky. The defence observed that the absence of the prosecutor and the prosecution witness, Victor Banda, had created lacunae (a gap) in the prosecution of the matter for which the law does not provide. The prosecution team comprised three members— Matemba, Amran Saidi also from Anti-Corruption Bureau and the hired private practice lawyer Clement Mwala. But, Saidi and Mwala were not present in the court. Matemba explained that the former had another case at the High Court in Lilongwe while the latter’s contract expired the previous week and the State had yet to renew it[34]. There adjournments had nothing to do with political interference.

Four days later on 10 May 2016 both Amran Saidi and Clement Mwala were present in court but Deputy Director Matemba had not yet been replaced. On the basis that the lead prosecutor had not yet been replaced the prosecution applied for an adjournment to “re-organise itself”[35]. The case was adjourned to June 2016, yet, when it resumed on 13 June 2016 the witness Victor Banda was ‘unavailable’. The State lead prosecutor Clement Mwala informed the court that the Anti-Corruption Bureau intended to review some counts against the accused and requested for 30 days to undertake the exercise. He said “the unavailability of some of the State witnesses necessitated the reviewing of the counts”[36]. Making his ruling Judge Kamwambe observed:

On 13th June 2016 this criminal matter came up for continued hearing. Mr. Mwala lead counsel for the state stated that he was just re-engaged yesterday Sunday in the afternoon and he was not ready to proceed. He also wondered if the anti-corruption bureau had summoned the witness, Mr. Victor Banda, to appear before court today. He alerted the court that since his contract with government had expired he did not appear in the last two occasions scheduled for healing. Later on he brought up the issue of need to make a review of the counts because some witnesses are not available due to long-time having expired and also to reconsider counts in which amounts are admitted by the state not to have been stolen by the first defendant. He asked the court to grant them at least 30 days to prepare....

 I feel compelled to comment on the conduct of the State in this matter. I thought this time around the State will act diligently to demonstrate their willingness to prosecute this matter as they promised but the actions go in the other direction. Mr. Mwala told the court that he was just recruited to continue representing the State yesterday Sunday afternoon in a meeting he had with the director of Anti-Corruption Bureau. The State must have known that counsel required to prepare himself mentally and physically for the case on Monday and that court was convening for hearing and not as if it were sitting for mention. Further, there is no explanation from the State why it recruited Mr. Mwala at the eleventh hour a thing which was likely to affect progress of the case. As if that was not enough, they did not even alert the witness to be available in court on the 13th of June 2016. This means that they are not utilizing their in-house counsel optimally. I said last time that the court is observing the conduct of the State. It is proving now that the State is prepared to frustrate the court’s progress in this matter. This conduct which in my view borders on contempt of court is very unbecoming and needs to stop otherwise the court shall consider measures to be taken against the State agency concerned. I advise the State once again to demonstrate seriousness in the case at hand or come out plainly with his intentions[37].

 The Judge reluctantly adjourned the case, which had been set down for a whole week and beseeched both the prosecution and the defence to prepare and commit to making progress with the trial on the days set, from “5th September, 2016 up to 16th September, 2016, then from 26th September to 7th October 2016. This is two weeks, 10 days of trial hearing.

The Malawi Law Society commented that it was disappointed that the State did not exhibit any appreciable zeal to ensure that the case is prosecuted to its logical conclusion. The Law Society observed that the decisions of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on whether to further prosecute the matter was no longer being guided by the clarity of the available evidence, but “some other irrelevant matters” that should ordinarily have no bearing on the case[38]. The Malawi Law Society called upon the Anti-Corruption Bureau to either “competently and diligently” prosecute the matter or hand it over to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Chancellor College Professor of Law, Edge Kanyongolo said the case had progressed “so slowly” that it undermined the confidence of the public in the efficiency and effectiveness of the country’s justice system as it means both the State and the accused have been denied justice because justice delayed is justice denied[39].

Ephraim Nyondo, a columnist with the Nation Newspaper referred to what was going on as “the Circus called Muluzi’s Case” lamenting:

Let us face it: We are all dog-tired of this case. Its prosecution processes are not just doubtfully slow, but they are dogged with suspicious adjournments and suspensions bordering on the health of the accused, sinister judicial review applications and disturbingly recusal of those representing the State.[40]

To ensure that this time around the dates set for hearing would not go to waste, the Court summoned the parties to a preparatory meeting on 1 September 2016. The main subject for examination was the proposal of the prosecution to amend the charges because the admissions of the first witness that he did not have evidence of corrupt practices regarding some of the amounts that the prosecution had conceded should be deducted from the amount of the charge and also due to the unavailability of some witnesses due to the passage of time. Both the Court and the defence were shocked to learn that the prosecution intended to proceed without any changes.

When the case was called on 5 September 2016, the first of the 10 days the case was set down for hearing the defence concluded cross examination of the first witness. Victor Banda the first witness in the K1.7 billion ($2.4 million at current rate) corruption case involving former president Bakili Muluzi acknowledged that he had no evidence of corruption in the transactions worth over K500 million ($684 932) deposited into Muluzi’s different bank accounts. The development brought the total figure of money subtracted from the total amount on the charge to over K600 million ($821 918) following an earlier deduction of about K100 million ($136 986) in April 2016. The State had added to the charge a loan transaction of about K20 million ($27 397), which Muluzi took from Loita Bank, to be considered as “money obtained corruptly.”

On 6 September 2016 the defence implored the Court to compel the State to relook at the charge sheet and amend it. The defence said “We were wondering why Dr Muluzi should be answering charges of corruption involving transactions made after he had already left office and other transactions which the State obviously knows do not hold any water”.[41] A quote from Judge Kamwambe’s ruling puts the atmosphere in the court in perspective[42]:

On short notice the Court summoned Counsel from both sides to meet in Chambers on Thursday 1st of September 2016. When we met the court explained to both sides that since the date of trial is near we remove any uncertainties as to how we proceed on Monday 5th September 2016. Prior to all this the state had requested more time to review counts due mainly to unavailability of some witnesses. To our surprise Mr. Mwala upon being asked to brief the court on the review stated that the state has decided to proceed with the case on 5th September 2016 with the original standing charge sheet. This meant that they had made no changes to the accounts.

 The defence was shocked with this revelation. They wondered whether the state was taking the court seriously noting from the trend of events in this matter. The defence recalled that it was at the state's instance that an application was made in open court to the judge to allow the state to review the counts due to unavailability of certain witnesses and evidence adduced in cross-examination. The defence wanted to know which witnesses would not be available so as to allow time to prepare for trial but there has been no communication from the state. They showed displeasure that at about three occasions the state had sought adjournment of the matter under the pretext that they are reviewing the matter and they were going to amend the counts and now after 3 months they say that they will not make any changes. Further, the defence wondered why amounts shown to be drawn from the first accused’s businesses the state says they will retain them even after being given three months to make amendments….

 The defence felt that what has happened is an abuse of court process warranting the discharge of the accused persons and they were going to make an application accordingly. They asked the court if in meanwhile the proceedings can be stayed….

 The court is of the view that any stay would delay the matter further and will therefore not be in the interest of Justice….

 When the court said the trial will proceed on 5th September 2016 the defence through Mr. Chokotho intervened and retorted that it would appear that the court is bent to proceed with a case at all cost and asked the court if it would recuse itself. Mr. Banda agreed with his colleague even if he did not have the floor….

 The court was shocked at this request and referred counsel to the full record of the matter since inception. The court record, the court said, would show how this court tried to protect the rights of the first accused person against the office of the Chief Secretary and the State as a whole when there was open animosity in that at diverse occasions the court gave the first accused person leave to go for medication abroad at Government expense. Almost at all times the court tried to be sympathetic with the accused persons so that a fair trial is achieved. The court pointed out that counsel was just emotional about a case. However, the court realized that counsel was not there in the early days as he has just taken over the case. Fortunately, counsel sobered up and apologized for his hasty request for the judge's recusal.

 It was unbecoming of counsel to intervene when the court was in the midst of delivering its ruling. This is the first time it has happened in my court…

 Come Tuesday 6th September 2016 trial commenced with the court giving the defence opportunity to come out with their plea or grievance. The defence wants the court to compel the state to amend counts which it views to be obviously unprovable, such as, where it is clear that the first accused obtained the money when he was out of office as president of the Republic of Malawi and where it is admitted that the moneys in issue were not corruptly received. The defence is afraid that the image created is that the accused is a bad offender.

 I have advised myself to exercise restraint and patience. If the defence can do the same. Let us not be in haste. Facts will eventually speak more loudly for themselves and determine the way forward. The court is alert and will maintain to be objective at all times and it will ensure that the accused are not prejudiced or persecuted. Fortunately, you will agree with me that a contrary image is now created, that is to say, that the first accused did not corruptly obtain the alleged MK1.7 billion.

 The court expects counsel to respect one another and to use proper language in court that is not derogatory.[43]

 The 10 days set down for the hearing of the case were never utilised. Having failed in its application for a stay of the proceedings or a discharge of the accused for abuse of court process, the defence then applied that the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court to examine the legality of section 32 of the Corrupt Practices Act which authorizes the Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate any public officer who: 

(a)  maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments or other known sources of income;

(b)  is in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments or other known sources of income; or

 (c)  is directly or indirectly in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act.

 Subsequently, the defence changed and withdrew the application. However, in March 2017 the defence, once again, requested that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court to examine the legality of section 32. The Court submitted the matter to the Chief Justice for referral to the Constitutional Court and a panel of three judges was constituted for the case: Judges Sylvester Kalembera, Dingiswayo Madise and Dorothy Nyakaunda-Kamanga. It was defence counsel Chokotho’s argument that Section 32 (2)(c) of the Corrupt Practices Act was unconstitutional as it puts a legal burden on the accused person. But on his part, State counsel Steven Kayuni argued that the section was a proper law that the country needs as it touches on the country’s constitutional framework, public trust and good governance.[44]

Thus from September 2016 there was no trial in the case and the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in February 2018, one year six months later. In their judgement the Constitutional Court judges maintained that the law was applicable[45]. Reacting to the judgement the opposition members of Parliament expressed their concern that the case was taking too long to conclude[46]. State Counsel Kayuni said “We know that Muluzi has an influence on UDF and his decisions can influence the party. His son is in Mutharika’s Cabinet. So, we can informally see the connection.” Kayuni said Bakili Muluzi must have been using his son, who came forth in 2014 presidential race. Kayuni said that interests of Mutharika, who appointed UDF president Atupele Muluzi as Minister of Health, could be to win the yellow party’s supporters in the South-Eastern region while the Muluzis want some reprieve.[47]

The defence appealed to the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal. A court schedule at the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal, dated December 16 2019, signed by High Court and Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal registrar Agnes Patemba, indicated that the Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal will on March 24 2020 resume hearing the case of former president Bakili Muluzi[48]. However, as of 1 July 2020 the appeal had not yet been heard.

The Nation Newspaper reported the Anti-Corruption Bureau Director Reyneck Matemba who in 2016 prosecuted Muluzi before he recused himself from the case, as saying he held the strong personal view that no one would come at the bureau and successfully prosecute Muluzi in the case that is clocking about 14 years. The ACB boss said in an interview last Wednesday that when he was prosecuting the case it reached a point where he could see that it was not going anywhere. “I was the seventh person to prosecute that case; it doesn’t mean we’re all failures and did not know our work. I had my own reasons why I recused myself from that case, which I only provided to the previous Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament. I repeat that case requires political solution backed by the law. All relevant stakeholders must be involved, that’s the ACB, Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP], the court and Parliament through Legal Affairs Committee,” Matemba suggested.[49]

President Bingu Mutharika

In 2004 Bingu wa Mutharika was elected President of Malawi. In August 2004 he deposited with Parliament his asset declaration documents showing that he was worth about K150 million ($209 790) in assets both in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Upon his death in April 2012 he is reputed to have owned farms in Kasungu, Salima, Mitundu – Bunda; real estates in Lilongwe and Blantyre including one bought from former president Bakili Muluzi; and the glamorous Ndata Estate; where he and his wife were laid to rest in a custom built mausoleum[50]. Media reports in 2013 indicated that Mota-Engil, a construction company that was awarded numerous Government contracts worth billions of Malawi Kwacha had made some periodic payments in 2010 and 2011 to the late President Bingu wa Mutharika personally. The construction company made separate cheque payments to the late president from as low as K1 million (about $4 000) to as high as K10 million (about $40 000) at a time with evidence of cheques for K13.5 million (about $54 000). Some of Mota-Engil cheques had been deposited directly into Bingu wa Mutharika’s personal accounts at some commercial banks.[51]

Mutharika reportedly also owned a hotel, a villa and a yacht in Portugal. He was the founder and chairman of the Bineth Trust and the Bingu Silver-Gray Foundation. The Malawi University of Science and Technology is said to have been built on his Ndata estate land[52].

Bingu wa Mutharika’s wealth was established after his death in 2012. President Joyce Banda, who took over power after Bingu wa Mutharika’s death, initiated the probe by first instructing an evaluator YMW Property Investment Limited to value Bingu wa Mutharika’s wealth. There were speculations before his death that he had dubiously amassed enormous wealth during his tenure as President. Upon his death it was said he was worth about K61,350,437,237.62. It was revealed that Bingu wa Mutharika also had assets in Singapore, Australia and the Isle of Man. The assets included funds in a bank account and three houses in Singapore; two presidential flats and funds in a bank account in Australia and funds in a bank account in the Isle of Man.[53] It was also reported that on 30 May 2013 the Deputy Registrar General Geoffrey Nkhata wrote several banks asking them to remit duty to the Malawi Government and to pay YWM Property Investment Limited[54].

In May 2014 President Banda lost in the Presidential Elections and Peter Arthur Mutharika became President. On 31 May 2015 the Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) officials and the Malawi Police Service raided the offices of YWM Property Investment Limited and seized computers and files after a six-hour search. These computers and files contained information on the assessment of the estate of late President Bingu wa Mutharika. “They [MRA officials] said they wanted the Bingu estate files, but when I told them that they (files) are also available at the Registrar General and the Attorney General offices, they said they wanted to find out whether I had paid tax on the fees I had collected for carrying out the valuation of the estate,” said Yeremia Chihana, proprietor of YWM Investment Limited.[55]

Earlier in 2015 the National Audit Office assisted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and financed by the German government had released preliminary audits of government finances between 2009 and 2014 which indicated that at least K577 bn. ($807 m) could not be accounted for. According to the forensic report, the frauds involving public funds started under Bingu wa Mutharika’s Democratic Progressive Party government and were of a different nature to the Cashgate type during President Joyce Banda’s reign in 2013. Under Bingu they were of the more typical over-invoicing and over-pricing variety.[56]

In 2016 these opposition politicians in Parliament made allegations that funds stashed in offshore accounts belonging to late President Bingu wa Mutharika were illegally obtained and should be brought back and utilised towards recovering the country’s ailing economy. Parliament formally authorised the Public Accounts Committee to undertake a preliminary probe into the late President Bingu Mutharika’s unexplained wealth. The Public Accounts Committee said it would summon officials from the Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the Financial Intelligence Unit, Reserve Bank of Malawi, Bankers Association of Malawi, office of Director of Asset Declaration, office of Director of Public Prosecution as well as office of the Ombudsman to help in the authentication of the documents. The Malawi Law Society backed calls for a probe into former president Mutharika’s billions, saying that citizens of the country had a right to know if money was misappropriated during Mutharika’s tenure as president from 2004 until his sudden death in 2012. One of the Members of Parliament, Mkandawire, while presenting copies of a document containing allegations regarding Mutharika’s accumulated wealth, blew the whistle on Portuguese multidisciplinary engineering group Mota Engil that it had been a front in providing bribes to grease the wheels of government contracts.[57] It was also rumoured that Mota Engil was bankrolling then Agriculture Minister George Chaponda in his bid to become Malawi's next president in 2019.[58]

With regard to the suspected assets in the Isle of Man, about 7 March 2014 the Republic of Malawi sought assistance of the Attorney General for Jersey, an island ruled by the Duke of Normandy, in obtaining documentary evidence to assist in criminal investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau into the estate of late President Bingu wa Mutharika. “Assistance was duly granted and documentary evidence produced by Jersey was dispatched to Malawi on June 6 2014… “Further, a written acknowledgement was sent to Jersey by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, on July 4 2014. The Director of Public Prosecutions then forwarded the documentary evidence to the then director general of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, who acknowledged receipt of the same on July 4 2014,” read a Joint Statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The two agencies said the statement was seeking to correct information that was given out to Nation Online titled ‘ACB helpless on Bingu’s K61 billion probe’.[59]

In early January 2016, Alec Le Sueur, practice manager and director of administration, who was also a media contact for Law Officers’ Department in Jersey, responded on behalf of a senior legal adviser Andrew Belhomme, an officer in the Attorney General’s office, who in a letter dated May 14 2014, had asked Standard Bank Jersey Limited to disclose information relating to the people under investigation: Bingu wa Mutharika and his daughter Duwa on bank account number 58099848, Optimum Account, held in the name of Bingu wa Mutharika and Duwa Kafoteka[60].

In 2018 the Anti-Corruption Bureau Director General Reyneck Matemba and the spokesperson Egrita Ndala had hinted that the case file remained open with the hope that investigations would continue when the information from Jersey would be received. However, soon after the joint statement, the Anti-Corruption Bureau Director General Reyneck Matemba said the Bureau could not trace any information from Jersey relating to the matter.[61]

In March 2019 the Anti-Corruption Bureau Director General Reyneck Matemba confirmed to Nation on Sunday newspaper that some information it got from Europe relating to Mutharika’s bank details could not be traced; a development that stalled progress on the probe. Matemba promised to engage former Anti-Corruption Bureau Head Justice Rezine Mzikamanda—under whose tenure the bureau handled the matter—on the way forward. This was not done. And in November 2019 in an e-mailed response to the media Matemba, while indicating that they would still engage Justice Mzikamanda on the matter, said he was not in a position to give details on that engagement. “But since we also report to the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament, regarding our work, we will seek audience with the Legal Affairs Committee, and brief them on the progress of this matter,” Matemba said. The Legal Affairs Committee chairperson Kezzie Msukwa said the matter had not been tabled before his committee.[62]

President Peter Mutharika

Nature endowed Malawi with great talent. The material used in this discourse is based on over 200 pages of notes, collected mostly from material in the media. Yet, that that material is captured on the Facebook wall of Daniel M Chikonja in one post. The same material is captured in one song of Bornie Richie ‘Lingakome’[63] lyrically and graphically depicting the ills affecting governance and development in Malawi today. That is talent.

Former president Bakili Muluzi once said Malawians forget quickly[64]. He was referring to the atrocities the Malawi Congress Party committed during its 31 years in power under Kamuzu Banda’s rule. Ironically, Muluzi was once Malawi Congress Party’s secretary general. In that position, he was the party’s second most influential man after Kamuzu. At that time, there was a very blurred line between State and the ruling party affairs. The ruling party was the State and vice-versa. Democracy in 1994 brought with it the hope that this blurred line would vanish and a clear distinction would emerge between ruling party and state. It was the feeling that one party state bred oppression which would be buried with the one party state. Those hopes were dashed. Muluzi, on the other hand, was wrong about Malawians. They did not forget. They do not forget; they have long memories. But Malawians are gullible.

They did not forget that during his campaign Bakili Muluzi promised to give every Malawian shoes. There is no authority but it is said that when as President he was reminded of the promise he responded “ine dikuziwa ma saizi anu” or do I know your shoe sizes? Malawians are gullible. Faced with unpalatable truth, they prefer wallowing in denial, or being credulous, they are easily swayed against their own belief in good and truth.

In 1994 Malawians knew Bakili Muluzi had a previous conviction for theft of ￡6, they voted for him. They knew that he had been a Secretary General of the ruling Malawi Congress Party of the dictatorial regime, they voted for him. Not because they had forgotten, but being na?ve, being credulous Malawians made themselves wilfully oblivious to these obvious facts, and voted for him. President Bingu Mutharika ascended to that high office piggybacked by Muluzi on this gullibility but in his first term President Bingu Mutharika gave Malawians a taste of what leadership ought to be. His disastrous second term was a surprise. President Joyce Banda was by default.

In 2014 Peter Mutharika was no surprise. Like in 1994 with Bakili Muluzi, Malawians knew Peter Mutharika was answering treason charges in court, they voted for him. They knew the circumstances that gave rise to the charges, they voted for him. They knew, from the advent of the academic freedom saga that he had an ostrich character leadership, they still voted for him. They had not forgotten these elements of Peter Mutharika’s profile, but they were, as usual, gullible. In their naivety they believed that he would be different once he became President. He was a professor of law, they opined, and we have a Constitution, we are a democracy based on the rule of law. Malawians believed that as professor of law President Peter Mutharika would govern dictated by the Constitution and guided by the rule of law.

It is this belief that blinded Malawians to the tell-tale signs from the outset of the Peter Mutharika presidency that it would not be in compliance with the Constitution, and that his presidency and his government generally would not respect the rule of law. In hindsight, after what Malawians have done and achieved between May 2019 and June 2020 in terms of Constitutionalism and the rule of law the Peter Mutharika presidency would not have survived its first six months; it would definitely not have survived half its term.

There were allegations that came out in 2013, before the tripartite elections that President Bingu Mutharika and his brother Peter Mutharika had purchased Lilongwe City Council houses in contravention of procedures. It was claimed that late President Bingu Mutharika through his Bineth Trust bought a Lilongwe City Council house which councillors had marked “not for sale” in 2003 because it was reserved for the chief executive officer in Area 12 at K5.3 million (US$14, 324). This was in disregarded of rules set by Ministry of Local Government. Bineth Trust also bought three other houses in Area 3 at K4.8 million (US$12 972), K3.3 million (US$8 918) and K3.7 million (US$1 000) respectively. His brother, later President Peter Mutharika bought a city council house in Area 10 at K3 760 000 (US$10, 162). An investigative audit of 2013 carried out by the National Audit Office (NAO) showed that nine of the 40 houses sold, including these sold to the Mutharika brothers, were sold against set rules. There were suggestions that the Mutharika brothers in connivance with the then Minister of Local Government George Chaponda had abused their authority and peddled their influence in the purchases.[65] It must be appreciated that to prove abuse of office the prosecutor only needs to show that the purchase was contrary to procedures prescribed by or under any written law; or established practice or any agreed rules or arrangement which is known or ought to be known to the public officer or which were brought to his attention by sufficient means.[66] Indeed, even if there was no abuse of office, it still would have been criminal if they purchased the houses having agreed with any person by deceit or any fraudulent means to affect the market price of the houses.[67]

Still in 2013 on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the death of President Bingu Mutharika, his brother, later President Peter Mutharika was charged with treason for conspiring to prevent the then Vice President Joyce Banda ascending to the presidency as dictated by the Constitution. He was charged jointly with Government officials that included; Minister of Finance, Economic Planning and Development Goodall Gondwe, Minister of Labour and Manpower Development Henry Mussa, Minister of Gender, Child and Social Welfare Patricia Kaliati, Minister of Health Jean Kalirani, Minister of Information, Tourism and Culture Kondwani Nankhumwa, Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development Bright Msaka, National Intelligence Bureau boss Nicholas Dausi and presidential adviser on national unity and parliamentary affairs Symon Vuwa Kaunda. Although there were eight suspects, the conspiracy was said to have been driven by a core of six and was thus referred to as the “Midnight Six”.

In November 2013 the case could not proceed because Judge Ivy Kamanga recused herself on the grounds: that in January 2012, she was a member of a three-judge panel which was sitting over a presidential referral case in which former president the late Bingu wa Mutharika, through his then adviser on legal affairs, Allan Ntata, sought interpretation of Section 84 of the Constitution on whether the then vice-president Joyce Banda had constructively resigned by forming her own party, the People’s Party; that she also appeared before the commission of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Bingu Mutharika; and that she was a family friend of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ephraim Mganda Chiume who was a material witness in one of the treason case charges of giving false information against Peter Mutharika, Gondwe and Msaka.[68]

The suspects were being represented by a team of lawyers that included Noel Chalamanda and Frank Mbeta but when the case was called in March 2014 it was adjourned to give time to private practice lawyer Kalekeni Kaphale who had joined the defence team.[69] However, the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the treason charges against newly elected President Peter Mutharika but was consulting on the possibility of dropping charges against the rest of the now accused persons (they had pleaded not guilty). It appears the driver of the discontinuance of the charges was that the new President Peter Mutharika had lamented during his inauguration and at a political rally that he faced persecution alongside former Cabinet ministers in the Bingu wa Mutharika administration and former chief secretary to the Government Bright Msaka because they were charged with treason.[70]

Upon the discontinuance, one of the accused, Henry Mussa, said he was consulting his lawyer, Kalekeni Kaphale because he expected an acquittal not discontinuance of the treason case. “This means the government has failed to prove its case. So I expect a full acquittal and I am consulting my lawyers on this,” he said.[71]

The word ‘lament’ that the media used is misplaced. One social and political commentator, Ephraim Nyondo, titles his comment on the first political rally the President held at Masintha ground in Lilongwe as ‘Be Afraid, be very afraid of Mutharika’ and described the content as “riddled with vulgar, its tone strong and insensitive, its delivery almost staggering”[72] The fired-up President Peter Mutharika tore apart his arrest on treason charges under President Joyce Banda administration as a “concoction and total rubbish” and further claimed an assassination attempt was made on his life while in police custody. Mutharika further dismissed as untrue claims by former Malawi Defence Force Commander General Henry Odillo at the Commission of Inquiry that Peter Mutharika had requested him, General Henry Odillo, to take over government following the death of his departed brother and former president Bingu wa Mutharika. He said he was ready to dispute Odillo’s version of events in court, saying he was only speaking about the events today as he was previously under a gag order from the courts stopping the treason suspects from commenting on the case. A visibly angry Mutharika also defended his administration’s recent dismissals of senior public officials, saying some of the officers had been re-located within government to pave way for the Cashgate investigation.[73]

Malawi Law Society condemned President Peter Mutharika on his claims against the composition of the commission of inquiry into former president Bingu wa Mutharika’s death, describing them as nepotistic and unacceptable. It was at this political rally held at Masintha Ground that the President dismissed the treason charges he faced during his predecessor Joyce Banda’s administration as a concoction and “total rubbish”. Said the President: “The Attorney General, the chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry came from the same village. It was a concoction and total rubbish.” The Law Society reminded him that the persons mentioned were professional public officers duly appointed in their various positions by the then head of State.” The Law Society added, “It is wrong for the President to attempt to impugn the statements made by some witnesses such as the former Army Commander, General Odillo, at public rallies knowing too well that such witnesses do not have an opportunity to respond to such unnecessary attacks through the same podium.”[74]

Subsequently, in December 2014 President Peter Mutharika knew that there was no justification at law for the discontinuance. Indeed, the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to disclose the reasons for the justification. Thus, President Peter Mutharika warned some of the co-accused against suing government, saying such a move was tantamount to biting the hand that fed them. The President also made it clear that whoever wanted to sue government should leave the party. All the co-accused were people serving in the previous President Bingu Mutharika’s administration in various capacities as Cabinet ministers and civil servants.[75] Mussa, Kaliati, Kalirani, Nankhumwa, Msaka, Dausi and Vuwa Kaunda had demanded compensation from government for false imprisonment. Their lawyers Kalekeni Kaphale Lawyers wrote the Attorney General on 11 August 2014 seeking “compensation for false imprisonment, defamation and malicious prosecution.” A week later, Mutharika summoned all the co-accused in the treason case, who were all from Democratic Progressive Party, to Kamuzu Palace in Lilongwe where he expressed concern about their intention to sue government. “He gave them the option to either drop the case and remain in government or continue demanding compensation and leave the party.” The co-accused then instructed Kalekeni Kaphale Lawyers to write the AG to withdraw the lawsuit which was done on November 26 2014.[76]

Early in 2015 Government silently dropped some cases linked to the former president the late Bingu Mutharika, including one in which the Government had wanted to turn Bineth Trust, the trust run by the family of the leader, into a public trust. Some cases were closed, but other high-profile cases were swept under the carpet. The case on the death of a Polytechnic student activist Robert Chasowa stalled while cases on the July 20 2013 killings that saw 20 protesters being killed by the police were proceeding only gradually. The Mutharika family opted for an out-of-court settlement where the Malawi Revenue Authority wanted the family to pay duty for 41 vehicles Bingu Mutharika had acquired. National Police Headquarters chief prosecutor Happy Mkandawire said the file on Chasowa was sent back to police for further investigations but said police had already returned the file to Ministry of Justice. “We were supposed just to refine certain aspects of the case and we have sent the file back to the Director of Public Prosecutions,” said Mkandawire. An affidavit in a case where government attempted to turn Bineth Trust into public quoted senior fiscal police investigators, telling the Commercial Court in Lilongwe through sworn statements that the fraud and financial crime investigating agency of police, Fiscal Department, was probing how Bingu acquired K61 billion he invested in Bineth Trust. The new Attorney General, Kalekeni Kaphale, who previously represented the family of Bingu in the Bineth Trust case, refused to comment on the matter, citing conflict of interest.[77]

Still in 2014, in July Principal Secretaries, Directors in all government ministries and chief executive officers of all parastatals were ordered to submit their curriculum vitae to the Office of the President and Cabinet. The request had emanated from Public Service Reform Commission. Minister of Information, Tourism and Civic Education Kondwani Nankhumwa confirmed the directive saying government wanted to know who was who in government and what they were doing. Chief Secretary to Government Hawa Ndilowe was demoted and re-assigned as High Commissioner to Tanzania. Government also hired Chimwemwe Banda as new Principal Secretary for Information and Gerald Viola as Director of Information, replacing Luckie Sikwese and Chikumbutso Mtumodzi, respectively. The Commander of the Malawi Defence Force, General Henry Odillo and the Deputy Inspector General of Police Nelson Bophani were also dismissed.[78]

In 2015 Odillo was re-deployed as deputy manager for Airport Development Limited while Msonthi the Deputy Army Commander was re-deployed as deputy manager for National Oil Company. No official announcement was made on the development, but the two, who were fired by President Peter Mutharika in June 2014, had been on the new jobs for over three months at the start of 2015. Minister of Information Kondwani Nankhumwa confirmed the development, “I can confirm about the redeployment of General Odillo as deputy manager at Airport Development Limited and General Msonthi as the deputy manager at National Oil Company respectively.” He further said their conditions of service were similar to the ones they were entitled to at Malawi Defence Force. Nankhumwa also confirmed the redeployment of former Malawi Housing Corporation deputy manager Wanangwa Mbeleka to the Ministry of Information, Tourism and Culture. But he dismissed reports that the new appointments were government’s way of running away from lawsuits that would come as a result of unfair dismissals of the Army generals.[79] The redeployment of the Army Generals was in violation of sections 14, 15, 16 and Regulations made under section 17 of the Defence Force Act; and therefore, illegal.

In 2016 President Peter Mutharika changed the leadership of the Malawi Defence Force, firing commander General Ignancio Maulana and replacing him with his former deputy Griffin Supuni-Phiri. Mutharika had appointed Maulana and Supuni-Phiri to the ranks of commander and deputy commander respectively in June 2014, barely a month after he assumed the presidency after his victory in the May 20 2014 Tripartite Elections. Maulana, like his predecessor Henry Odillo who was to remain on the government payroll until his mandatory retirement in 2019, was re-deployed to head the security section of the National Food Reserve Agency until he attained his mandatory retirement age of 60 in 2017. Supuni-Phiri, who for a long time had served as Malawi’s military attaché at the Malawi Mission at the United Nations and as aide de camp to then President Bakili Muluzi, was deputised by Lieutenant General Clement Namangale (administration) and Lieutenant General Vincent Nundwe (operations). Since 2011, there have been frequent changes in Army command after the then president the late Bingu wa Mutharika appointed Odillo whom President Peter Mutharika sacked in June 2014.[80] These redeployment of the Army Generals was in violation of sections 14, 15, 16 and Regulations made under section 17 of the Defence Force Act; and therefore, illegal.

Half-way into President Peter Mutharika’s presidency three comments in the media on rule of law and governance stood out. One by Ephraim Nyondo on his column in the Nation; another by the ‘Wise One from the East’ and the third appearing on the column of Tom Sangala but apparently from what later became the column ‘Talking Blues’ with ‘Mapwiya Muupale’ in the Nation on Sunday.

Four months into his Presidency, tell-tale signs were already showing that President Peter Mutharika was only continuing from where his brother late President Bingu Muthariaka had left off. Literally. At least in terms of non-compliance with the constitutional and legislative dictates, disrespect for rule of law and general poor governance. Ephraim Nyondo says this was evident in President Peter Mutharika’s speech at the political rally he held at Masintha ground in Lilongwe. He said the content of the speech “riddled with vulgar, its tone strong and insensitive, its delivery almost staggering, it was a speech I regard historical because it could be a watershed of what is to come from his leadership’. In his first 100 days, he, unlike his predecessor Joyce Banda had not been so much of a public President. He had only held three mass rallies: in Mzuzu, Blantyre and at Masintha, Lilongwe. In the first two rallies, there was nothing unusual about how he spoke. He was the calm, sober, policy-specific president we knew from campaign days. But the speech he gave at Masintha was a complete antithesis of what most Malawians began to know and like about Mutharika. One, he was visibly tense and irate. Two, the tone was harsh and attacking. And three, the content of the speech, weighed by its deep sense of emptiness, was nothing, but extreme pettiness from a professor president. Are we seeing a different Mutharika? Or we had experienced a wrong version of him earlier, but now the innermost him is coming out? Listening to the speech you felt like you were listening to late Bingu’s last speeches of hate and vengeance. Of course, you would understand Bingu—he had so much to be frustrated with. But it would take a year, or even a decade, to understand Mutharika’s cruise to the political destruction in the first 100 days, the period every leader plays safe and nice, more so if you are a leader whom the majority rejected. Nyondo then concludes “For this, I am really afraid, very afraid and, you too, should.”

Continuing Nyondo argued that Peter Mutharika, in his outbursts, had also shown that he is a tribalist. Mutharika had been going public talking about the need of thinking Malawi first. However, as it is always the case, the truth lies in actions, not words. For Mutharika, his actions barely vindicated his words of thinking Malawi first. He showed the first glimpse of regionalism and tribalism in a leaked conversation. He was quoted dressing down former Speaker of Parliament Henry Chimunthu Banda as a person who cannot lead the Democratic Progressive Party because he is Tonga. Really? A full professor who has stayed and taught in civilised America discrediting somebody’s leadership capability based on tribal affiliation? Nyondo concluded, “I will not talk about how skewed his public appointments have been in favour of a particular region and tribe. But I will talk about the embarrassing ground the President gave in the speech last week to justify why his treason arrest last year was a ‘concoction and rubbish’. The President said the ‘Attorney General chairperson of the commission of inquiry [into events surrounding the death of his late brother, Bingu] came from the same village’. Really, professor?[81]

The ’Wise One from the East’ dwells on President Mutharika’s hypocrisy on Public Service Reforms. This must be viewed against the background that in June 2014 the Government had requested all principal secretaries, directors and chief executives of statutory bodies to submit their curriculum vitae. Minister of Information, Tourism and Civic Education Kondwani Nankhumwa confirmed this and said the Democratic Progressive Party government wanted to know who was who in government and what they were doing; “Yes, the Reform Commission, through the Office of President and Cabinet, requested for CVs of top civil servants starting from director up to PS level. But let me mention that there is no sinister motive behind that and people should not get worried.”[82] Government gave no feedback on this exercise. The appointments did not show that the curriculum vitae had been used. In fact, there was growing discontent even among party partnership members, United Democratic Front, who felt appointments were being made only from Democratic Progressive Party. The thorny issue was Mutharika’s appointments of board members for 25 statutory corporations in which none of the appointees was from the UDF. “It does not make sense that out of about 240 individuals the President [Mutharika] has appointed into parastatals, none from the UDF has made it. To make matters worse, the President has appointed three opposition politicians into these boards completely leaving out UDF members. Is this alliance helping us or it is there just to benefit one person?” a senior UDF member said.[83]

On the other hand, the Public Service Reform Commission completed its work and presented its report to the President with recommendations for reform. The Vice President led the Commission and led the consultations with a myriad of stakeholders. One recommendation that he outlined to stakeholders was that the number of principal secretaries was going to be reduced from 96 to 40 for the 20 established posts. This meant 56 positions of principal secretary grade were going to be removed; mostly through retiring those due and paying off others. In a move that scoffed at President Peter Mutharika’s own public service reforms recommendations to trim principal secretaries the Chief Secretary to Government George Mkondiwa was given a new three-year contract, 1095 days past his mandatory retirement age; with new terms of remuneration at par with the Vice President. The pronouncements and actions of the Chief Secretary were in complete variance to the pronouncements of the Vice President and recommendations of the Public Service Reform Commission.[84]

A further illustration of this was the removal of the Public Service Reforms from the Vice President to the President’s Office and the appointment, in total disregard of the reform recommendations, of a former commissioner, Seodi White to head the reforms in the President’s office. Another former commissioner, Evelyn Mwapasa, was appointed a chief executive officer, again in total disregard of the reforms recommendations. But a few months later, again, without due regard to the reform recommendations, she was moved from one statutory body to another. The removal of Evelyn Mwapasa as Chief Executive Officer of the beleaguered Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi was described by rights groups protesting against incessant power outages as a good move although they remained skeptical. Mwapasa, who only served at the Electricity Corporation for eight months was moved to Air Cargo to serve as General Manager.[85]

The numerous re-deployments in 2014 to 2016 is what prompted the plea on Tom Sangala page, “Mr. President, your ‘redeployments’ are killing us!”. Tax payers remunerating three salaries of a serving commander of the Malawi Defence Forces because, for one reason or another, two of the generals were prematurely ‘redeployed’; ‘fired on political grounds’. These included the serving Malawi Defence Force Commander General Griffin Upuni-Phiri, and his predecessor General Ignacio Maulana and before him General Henry Odillo; all enjoying packages entitled to a serving Malawi Defence Force Commander, at the taxpayer’s expense. In addition to the mess at the Malawi Defence Force tax money was also being paid to the former Chief Executive Officer for Blantyre City Council Ted Nandolo, ‘redeployed’ to Malawi Gaming Board on the same terms and conditions he was getting at Blantyre City Council. In the meantime, the Director of Administration who had been suspended, Alfred Chanza was appointed Acting and later confirmed Chief Executive Officer, resulting in tax money paying benefits to two Chief Executive Officers. Alongside the two generals, Odillo’s deputy Major General John Msonthi, former Deputy Inspector General Nelson Bophani, former Principal Secretary for Mining Leonard Kalindekafe are also in a similar situation, collecting unearned monthly salaries and other benefits when Malawi cannot afford to pay salary arrears for the hapless teachers or indeed hire trained but unemployed health professionals.[86]

At this point President Mutharika was preparing to ‘redeploy’ Malawi Energy Regulatory Authority Chief Executive Officer Raphael Kamoto for the umpteenth time, Kamoto’s only qualified successor – as far as Mutharika was concerned – was Cashgate-tainted Ishmael Chioko. While these ridiculous but costly decisions were being made, people we previously deemed intelligent, stood up in defence of this baloney. With respect to Cashgate-tainted Chioko, the Attorney General Kalekeni Kaphale – of all people – weighed in defending the appointment of a money-laundering suspect. Kaphale told the media he was far from worried about the status of Chioko as everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. Kaphale said: “You don’t want to freeze people’s lives simply because they are suspects. One has to be tried. If he has a case and besides he is just acting.” But for some reason, the same reasoning was not applied when firing Odillo, Maulana, Kalindekafe, Kamoto and many others.[87]

[1] President Joyce Banda was not a ‘term president’ and both the Baker Tilly and Pricewaterhouse Coopers audit reports show that Cashgate commenced before she came to power and continued after she left office. Cashgate, Government acknowledged, was “not an opportunistic theft but rather a complex system of fraud and money laundering”: Mutharika and Another v Chilima and Another [2020] MWSC 1; State v Ex parte Muluzi and Another ((2 of 2009)) [2009] MWHC 13 and International Monetary Fund, IMF Country Report No. 15/83 MALAWI, March 2015, at page 61 Attachment I

[2] Constitution, s.10

[3] Ibid, s.9

[4] Malawi News Online, Edition # 29 7 May 1997, https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Newsletters/mno29.html

[5] Irish Times, “Banda charged with fraud”, Feb 1, 1997

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/banda-charged-with-fraud-1.27839   Also see: Diana Cammack, Ph.D., “Poorly Performing Countries: Malawi, 1980-2002”, Overseas Development Institute, March 2004, at p.66

https://www.odi.org/publications/3718-poorly-performing-countries-malawi-1980-2002

[6] Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, “Malawi Tries Ex-Dictator in Murder: Africa: Aging autocrat is one of few among continent’s tyrants to face justice for regime’s abuses”, MAY 21, 1995

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-21-mn-4491-story.html

[7] Staff Reporter, Mail & Guardian, “Banda off the hook as appeal thrown out of court”, 31 Jul 1997 https://mg.co.za/article/1997-07-31-banda-off-the-hook-as-appeal-thrown-out-of-court/

[8] Malawi News Online, Edition # 29 7 May 1997, https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Newsletters/mno29.html

[9] CMI Report, Siri Gloppen, Edge Kanyongolo, Nixon Khembo, Nandini Patel, Lise Rakner, Lars Sv?sand, Arne Tostensen and Mette Bakken, “The Institutional Context of the 2004 General Elections in Malawi”, R2006:21 https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/2541-the-institutional-context-of-the-2004-general.pdf See also QUESTIA ONLINE, Magazine Article New African, “Muluzi Laughs Last: Hobbs Gama Reports on How President Bakili Muluzi Has Outmaneuvered the Opposition to His Failed Third-Term Bid” https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-101527751/muluzi-laughs-last-hobbs-gama-reports-on-how-president and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakili_Muluzi

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakili_Muluzi

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] State v Ex parte Muluzi and Another (2 of 2009) [2009] MWHC 13

[14] Ibid, p.3

[15] Ibid, p.18

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakili_Muluzi

[17] R v Bakili Muluzi & another (1 of 2009) [2009] MWHC 18

[18] British Broadcasting (BBC) News, “Atupele Muluzi arrested after Malawi riots”, 20 March 2012

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17438072

[19] Johnny Kasalika, “Prosecutor’s eligibility stalls Muluzi graft case”, Malawi Nation Newspaper,

https://www.mwnation.com/prosecutor%e2%80%99s-eligibility-stalls-muluzi-graft-case/

[20] Johnny Kasalika, “Muluzi case resumes today, David Nyamilandu cleared”, Malawi Nation Newspaper

https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-case-resumes-today-David Nyamilandu-cleared/

[21] Johnny Kasalika, “Mwenelupembe allowed to represent Muluzi”, Malawi Nation Newspaper

https://www.mwnation.com/mwenelupembe-allowed-to-represent-muluzi/ Edwin Nyirongo, Court throws out Muluzi objections in K1.7bn trial, Malawi Nation Newspaper, January 15, 2015 https://www.mwnation.com/court-throws-muluzi-objections-k1-7bn-trial/

[22] Johnny Kasalika, “ACB starts testifying against Muluzi”, Malawi Nation Newspaper

https://www.mwnation.com/acb-starts-testifying-against-muluzi/

[23] Ibid

[24] https://www.nyasatimes.com/reyneck-matemba-appointed-acb-deputy-director/

[25]Allafrica, Bakili Muluzi's Corruption Case in Limbo, 6 November 2014

https://allafrica.com/stories/201411061213.html 

[26] Edwin Nyirongo, Court suspends Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, April 14, 2015

https://www.mwnation.com/court-suspends-muluzi-case/ Lucky Mkandawire, Chief Justice defers Muluzi’s K1.7bn case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, July 15, 2015 https://www.mwnation.com/chief-justice-defers-muluzis-k1-7bn-case/

[27] Muluzi v The Anti-Corruption Bureau [2015] MWSC 442

[28] Ibid

[29] Victoria Milanzi, revealed: Malawi govt wants to drop Bakili Muluzi’s corruption case, Malawi24, Nov 19, 2015 https://malawi24.com/2015/11/19/revealed-malawi-govt-wants-to-drop-bakili-muluzis-corruption-case/

[30] Mercy Malikwa, Muluzi case set for speedy trial, Malawi Nation Newspaper, February 2, 2016

https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-case-set-for-speedy-trial/

[31] Lucky Mkandawire, Witness hitch in muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, April 12, 2016

https://www.mwnation.com/witness-hitch-in-muluzi-case/

[32] Mercy Malikwa, Over K100m struck off Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, April 15, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/over-k100m-struck-off-muluzi-case/

[33] Lucky Mkandawire, Delays annoy judge in Muluzi corruption case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, May 4, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/delays-annoy-judge-in-muluzi-corruption-case/

[34] Lucky Mkandawire, ACB boss out of Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, May 6, 2016

https://www.mwnation.com/acb-boss-out-of-muluzi-case/

[35] Lucky Mkandawire, ACB yet to replace lead prosecutor in Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, May 10, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/acb-yet-to-replace-lead-prosecutor-in-muluzi-case/ and Lucky Mkandawire, State wants Muluzi case review, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 14, 2016

https://www.mwnation.com/state-wants-muluzi-case-review/

[36] Lucky Mkandawire, State wants Muluzi case review, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 14, 2016

https://www.mwnation.com/state-wants-muluzi-case-review/

[37] Republic v Muluzi and Another [2016] MWHC 547

[38] Mercy Malikwa, Law Society queries ACB independence in Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, August 12, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/law-society-queries-acb-independence-in-muluzi-case/

[39] Ibid

[40] Ephraim Nyondo, Columns, The circus called Muluzi’s case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, August 14, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/the-circus-called-muluzis-case/

[41] Lucky Mkandawire, K500m more struck off in Muluzi case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, September 6, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/k500m-more-struck-off-in-muluzi-case/ and Lucky Mkandawire, The enigma of Muluzi’s K1.7bn case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, December 29, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/the-enigma-of-muluzis-k1-7bn-case/

[42] Republic v Muluzi and Another [2016] MWHC 569

[43] Republic v Muluzi and Another [2016] MWHC 569

[44] Lucky Mkandawire, Court concludes hearing on Muluzi’s plea, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 14, 2017 https://www.mwnation.com/court-concludes-hearing-on-muluzis-plea/

[45] Aamena Dassu, “How Muluzi won by losing”, Malawi Nation Newspaper, February 22, 2018 https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-won-losing/

[46] Enelless Nyale, “Muluzi case ruling stirs debate”, Malawi Nation Newspaper, February 23, 2018

https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-case-ruling-stirs-debate/

[47] Ayamba Kandodo and Rex Chikoko, “The political side of Muluzi’s case”, Malawi Nation Newspaper, February 26, 2018 https://www.mwnation.com/political-side-muluzis-case/

[48] Nation Online, Muluzi back in court on March 24, Malawi Nation Newspaper, January 17, 2020

https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-back-in-court-on-march-24/

[49] Frank Namangale, Muluzi case needs political solution—ACB boss, Malawi Nation Newspaper, March 1, 2020 https://www.mwnation.com/muluzi-case-needs-political-solution-acb-boss/

[50] AGORA moderator, Malawi Parliament probe into Bingu ‘cashgate proceeds’ in offshore accounts, Nyasa Times, https://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi-parliament-probe-bingu-cashgate-proceed...https://agora-parl.org/node/19576

[51] Johnny Kasalika, “The Mota-Engil, Bingu connection”, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 10, 2013 https://www.mwnation.com/the-mota-engil-bingu-connection/

[52] Refer to Footnote 1

[53] AGORA moderator, Malawi Parliament probe into Bingu ‘cashgate proceeds’ in offshore accounts, Nyasa Times, https://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi-parliament-probe-bingu-cashgate-proceed...https://agora-parl.org/node/19576 More detail at https://www.nyasatimes.com/probe-discovers-bingus-worth-more-than-k61bn-property-accounts-in-singapore-australia-and-isle-of-man/

[54] https://www.nyasatimes.com/probe-discovers-bingus-worth-more-than-k61bn-property-accounts-in-singapore-australia-and-isle-of-man/

[55] https://www.nyasatimes.com/mra-raids-bingu-estate-valuer-yeremiah-chihana-impounds-computers-files-report/

[56] AGORA moderator, Malawi Parliament probe into Bingu ‘cashgate proceeds’ in offshore accounts, Nyasa Times, https://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi-parliament-probe-bingu-cashgate-proceed...https://agora-parl.org/node/19576

[57] Ibid

[58] Judith Moyo, Malawi: “Mota Engil Bankrolls Chaponda's Bid to Be Malawi Next President”, Nyasa Times, reported by AllAfrica Online news, 15 November 2016 https://allafrica.com/stories/201611150922.html

[59] Reporter, Malawi former President Bingu wealth info vanishes, Maravi Post, 01 Apr 2019 https://www.maravipost.com/malawi-former-president-bingu-wealth-info-vanishes/ see also Frank Namangale, Bingu wealth info vanishes, Malawi Nation Newspaper, March 31, 2019 https://www.mwnation.com/bingu-wealth-info-vanishes/

[60] Ibid

[61] Reporter, Malawi former President Bingu wealth info vanishes, Maravi Post, 01 Apr 2019 https://www.maravipost.com/malawi-former-president-bingu-wealth-info-vanishes/ see also Frank Namangale, Bingu wealth info vanishes, Malawi Nation Newspaper, March 31, 2019 https://www.mwnation.com/bingu-wealth-info-vanishes/

[62] Lucky Mkandawire & Mercy Malikwa, ACB sitting on bingu’s assets probe, November 9, 2019 https://www.mwnation.com/acb-sitting-on-bingus-assets-probe/

[63] Born Richie, ‘Lingakome’, by Ralph Records, Ralph Ching’amba

[64] https://www.mwnation.com/the-forgotten-k236bn-plunder/  and https://www.nyasatimes.com/muluzi-was-right-malawians-forget-quickly-k236bn-cashgate-successfully-swept-under-the-carpet/  and Steve Nhlane https://www.maravipost.com/tag/amalawi-sachedwa-kuyiwala-malawians-forget-quickly/    

[65] Wisdom Chimgwede, Mutharikas bought 5 city houses at k20m, Malawi Nation Newspaper, November 2, 2013 https://www.mwnation.com/mutharikas-bought-5-city-houses-at-k20m/

[66] Corrupt Practices Act, s.25B(4)

[67] Penal Code, s.323

[68] Suzgo Khunga, Treason case judge opts out, Malawi Nation Newspaper, November 15, 2013 https://www.mwnation.com/treason-case-judge-opts-out/  and Johnny Kasalika, Judge Kamanga recuses from Mutharika’s treason case, Malawi Nation Newspaper, November 20, 2013 https://www.mwnation.com/judge-kamanga-recuses-from-mutharika%e2%80%99s-treason-case/

[69] Edwin Nyirongo, Kaphale joins perjury case defence, Malawi Nation Newspaper, March 25, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/kaphale-joins-perjury-case-defence/

[70] Suzgo Khunga, Peter Mutharika’s treason charges to be dropped, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 4, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/peter-mutharika%e2%80%99s-treason-charges-to-be-dropped/

[71] Suzgo Khunga, Treason case against Mutharika, others discontinued, Malawi Nation Newspaper, June 18, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/treason-case-against-mutharika-others-discontinued/

[72] Ephraim Nyondo, Be afraid, be very afraid of Mutharika, Malawi Nation Newspaper, September 14, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-of-mutharika/

[73] Johnny Kasalika, Mutharika accuses JB of assassination plot, Malawi Nation Newspaper, September 8, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/mutharika-accuses-jb-of-assassination-plot/

[74] Edwin Nyirongo, Law Society censure Mutharika, Malawi Nation Newspaper, September 11, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/law-society-censure-mutharika/

[75] Sam Chunga, Mutharika tells DPP officials suing govt is counter-productive, Malawi Nation Newspaper, December 26, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/mutharika-tells-dpp-officials-suing-govt-counter-productive/

[76] Ibid

[77] Golden Matonga, Govt drops cases linked to Bingu, Malawi Nation Newspaper, February 1, 2015 https://www.mwnation.com/govt-drops-cases-linked-bingu/

[78] Rebecca Chimjeka, DPP govt calls for CVs of top civil servants, parastatal bosses, Malawi Nation Newspaper, July 5, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/dpp-govt-calls-for-cvs-of-top-civil-servants-parastatal-bosses/

[79] Rebecca Chimjeka, Govt re-hires Odillo, Msonthi, Malawi Nation Newspaper, January 17, 2015 https://www.mwnation.com/govt-re-hires-odillo-msonthi/

[80] Suzgo Khunga, APM fires army chief: Supuni-Phiri now Army Commander, Malawi Nation Newspaper, August 1, 2016 https://www.mwnation.com/apm-fires-army-chief-supuni-phiri-now-army-commander/

[81] Ephraim Nyondo, Be afraid, be very afraid of Mutharika, Malawi Nation Newspaper, September 14, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-of-mutharika/

[82] Rebecca Chimjeka, DPP govt calls for CVs of top civil servants, parastatal bosses, Malawi Nation Newspaper, July 5, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/dpp-govt-calls-for-cvs-of-top-civil-servants-parastatal-bosses/

[83] Lucky Mkandawire, UDF, DPP pact under microscope, Malawi Nation Newspaper, November 13, 2014 https://www.mwnation.com/udf-dpp-pact-microscope/

[84] Wise One from the East, Implementation of Reforms, Nyasa Times, October 20, 2015 https://www.nyasatimes.com/implementation-of-reforms-if-wishes-were-horses-malawi-would-ride/

[85] Tom Sangala, What next at Escom, Times, November 10, 2017 https://times.mw/what-next-at-escom/

[86] Tom Sangala, Mr President, your ‘redeployments’ are killing us!, Times, October 7, 2016 https://times.mw/mr-president-your-redeployments-are-killing-us/

[87] Ibid