No decision to drop Muluzi charges , ACB czar says case against Malawi ex-president to continue

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)  director Lucas Kondowe  has said  the graft-busting body will continue the trial involving former president Bakili Muluzi to its logical conclusion.

Kondowe: Muluzi case will continue to its logicl conclusion

Kondowe: Muluzi case will continue to its logicl conclusion

Kondowe said no decision has been made to drop the corruption charges despite that the lead prosecutor Reyneck Matemba recused himself from the case and it has been draining money close to K1.7billion yet the  state simply has no objective material evidence that Muluzi was  siphoning from state coffers during his decade as leader of the nation.

Muluzi, who ruled the southern African country between 1994 and 2004,  and his co-accused, his former personal assistant Lyness Violet Whisky,stand accused of diverting at least US$ 13 million of what the State had claimed was donor money meant for various government development projects to his personal accounts.

He denies the charges, and vehemently alleged they were pressed on him for political persecution by his successor Bingu wa Mutharika.

Court documents seen by Nyasa Times shows there is no evidence of donor aid money going into Muluzi account or siphoning of public funds.

Director for the state corruption-busting body, Kondowe said despite lead prosecutor Matemba has opted out of the case on “personal grounds”, the bureau will pursue further the matter.

He said  they will put whatever material they have before court  to decide, if it is not suffici ent enough they will acquit him and it’s sufficient enough they will c onvict him.

‘‘The bureau will map the way forward after reviewing the case with the legal team,’’ Kondowe said, as quoted in the press.

He insisted the case will continue.

However, Judge Mclean Kamwambe,  will hear the State on how they want to proceed on May 12 before ruling on whether to discharge the case as applied by defence team led by Tamando Chokotho.

Chokhotho  asked the court to discharge the Muluzi  arguing the State had no prosecutor and  that in criminal proceedings, there is a requirement that matters must have specific dates and that they must be heard within those specific dates.

Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :

Please share this Article if you like Email This Post Email This Post

More From the World

11 thoughts on “No decision to drop Muluzi charges , ACB czar says case against Malawi ex-president to continue”

  1. My Malawi says:

    koma ndi2 akugwetsan chair? koma malawi!!!!!!

  2. Zilani says:

    Personal Poverty alleviation at its climax.

  3. Tozer Tsono says:

    A time to fire Reyneck Matemba and everyone on Muluzi’s case. How much does he get paid anyway? He needs to refund the salary for all the time spent on the Muluzi case.
    Who is his boss? The same applies to him or her.
    How many at ACB worked on the case from its onset? They ought to pay back salaries while on the case. Hold back their gratuities if they do not pay back the monies from their salaries while on the Muluzi case.
    Of course, you have to fire all of them soon before they mess up another case; time to clean house. Tax payers money should not go to paying Muluzi; get it from Mutharikas, ACB DPP salaries and gratuities. Do not bring a case to court just to lose it. Everyone that worked on this case, if it fails, will have made a fool of the judicial system in Malawi. Such prosecutors ought to be disbarred. They are robbing the client, the people of Malawi, of limited time, monies, and all the sitting judges on a worthless case.
    Down with the whole ACB Department, if they lose this case. At what cost to both Malawi citizens and the defendant are they willing to lose the case? Did Muluzi pay taxes on the money at the time it was deposited or before it was deposited in his bank account? Instead of bringing the case to court, why didn’t you audit his businesses to verify the source of his income instead of alleging the deposits were by donors? Before making the allegation, have a list of donors in witness to the deposits. That would make it an open and shut case. Now, it is only the tax records that have to be examined but after 11 years, one could have altered the records or set them up in flames. ACB if they have any sense, ought to prosecute the case whether Muluzi is present or outside of the country. Mind you, Muluzi has been to many functions, monitoring elections, without the urgent need of medical attention. Why does he have this need when he is in court? Does the DPP have medical records of Muluzi rushing for medical treatment in South Africa in the past five years?
    Or is this another way of the government stealing scarce forex because it looks legitimate? How much money does he take abroad, who is it paid to, where does he stay in SA? Why didn’t he set up a hospital to cater to his health needs or other presidents’ needs? He had 10 years in power, what was he thinking?

  4. Christopher says:

    Waba k35000 8yrs,kodi mamagestritwa ndiaja kale amaweluza kumakhoti amiyambo eti?

  5. B. Manda says:

    Mulandu wakuvutani uwu vomereani. Mutayeni chair achakulungwa KUCHIMTEKETE ACHAIR WOYEEEEE

  6. Distinguished Malawian says:

    It remains a wonder why the matured, distinguished and learned Judge Redzine Mudzikamanda was removed as ACB Director General in the first place. Mr Kondowe just like the biased Nampota seem to be completely lost as ACB Director much more than Nampota.

    And Nyasatimes is behaving in a funny way on this case, it has joined the defense team by claiming that there is no objective evidence against Bakili Muluzi.This is very laughable but obvious since Ken Ndanga in a working relationship with Atupele Muluzi and UDF.

    In case Nyasatimes has lost its memory, it is Bakili Muluzi who has been delaying the conclusion of this case all along.At one point, Bakili Muluzi tactfully turned the Hospitals into his second home .Then when Bingu died, he made sure his home mate and sister, Amayi Joyce Banda kept the case for two years under carpet and now he (Muluzi) has made sure that Peter Muthalika becomes his political bed fellow at all costs even if it may be against his own political consciousness .Assuming there is indeed no objective evidence, then the learned Matemba should have convinced his ACB boss to have the case dropped but instead he rescued himself on “PERSONAL GROUNDS” and after “CAREFUL REFLECTION”.If i may ask Nyasatimes, What was Matemba reflecting on? obviously not the lack of objective evidence as Nyasatimes want us to believe but it could make sense if one could think of UNDUE INFLUENCE from above.

    On the part of Muluzi and his legal team, if indeed there is no objective evidence,then they should have been praying to the court that the case continues,win it in court as soon as possible, have Muluzi damaged reputation cleared in court and claim huge damages from Government. By virtual of praying to the court that the case should instead be discontinued on grounds of temporary non availability of prosecution Team, the Muluzi Team is raising eyes brows of many of us!

  7. MCHEMO says:


  8. Kenkkk says:

    Acb is really confused within itself. Please stop dumping your rubbish on us.

    Until you really become independent from govt interference, your existrnce is just a waste of taxpayers money.

    This change of mind has come about because this dpp thieving and corrupt govt just discovered itself that it is losing credibility from Malawians and donors on its spurious barking of tackling corruption and cashgates.

    One stupid reason being given by those supporting thieving and corruption in this case is that donors or foreign govts don’t deposit their money into individual’s personal bank accounts. Of course they don’t. Did donors put all the cashgate moneys into people’s personal accounts? No. The USA embassy is complaining about its aid money to the ministry of health being cash-gated, did it depisit the money into people’s personal accounts? Again no. But still the money was being stolen and ending up into people’s personal accounts.

    So the fact that donors didn’t directly deposit their money into bakili’s account, doesn’t mean that bakili didn’t steal the donor money. So he could be innocent or not innocent. They need to follow the money trail to establish hoe and whether or not donor money ended up into bakili’s personal bank accounts.

    1. The Analyst says:

      Very well said, Ken.

  9. Bob Chiswe says:

    Kondowe is barking uselessly as a publicity stunt when he knows nothing will happen and the trial will be discontinued. You should have kept quiet you FOOL

  10. KWITENDE says:




Comments are closed.

More From Nyasatimes