Fugitive Mphwiyo wants his forfeited house back: Uses his wife to challenge High Court order
In a twist to the fugitive Paul Mphwiyo saga, his wife, Thandizo, has challenged a High Court of Malawi order to forfeit the family’s Area 43 residence in Lilongwe.
Through lawyer Khumbo Soko, Thandizo on Monday filed an application in the High Court in Lilongwe to set aside the forfeiture order for Mphwiyo’s residence made on March 28 2024.
However, ACB chief legal and prosecution officer Imran Saidi has objected to both applications, saying the forfeited house was personally deposited to the court by Mphwiyo as part of his bail bond, adding that Mphwiyo mentioned that it was his house and not for him and his wife.
He said the property is known to be solely owned by Mphwiyo and that if the wife invested in it, she should bring proof to claim ownership.
Said Saidi: “The defence is just trying to claim the house. Anyone can come to claim a house. No one would want to see a property go. Mphwiyo demonstrated in many ways that he owned the house. In seeking bail, he indicated lease for ‘my’ house and not ‘our’ house.”
Saidi underlined that it is dishonesty to have the house deposited as bail bond and have the same house claimed by another party, wondering why the wife did not challenge the husband when he put the house as part of the bail bond.
But Soko told the court that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has already issued an eviction notice for Mphwiyo’s family, adding that his client has up to April 30 to leave the house.
He said: “So, the stay order remains urgent. The court needs to look into this. If the court doesn’t, the ACB will proceed to evict my client by April 30 2024.”
In the application to set aside the forfeiture order, Soko told the court that the house the government forfeited was a matrimonial property for the Mphwiyos.
He said Thandizo has interest in the house whose construction she contributed to and has been affected by the forfeiture order; hence, the need to consider her application.
Submitted Soko: “We have a party affected by the order of the court. She cannot come as second defendant. She has the right to the house but is affected by the order for forfeiture.
“If parties directly impacted by the order are not heard, it means implementation for eviction will be done.”
He said the ACB needed to make an inquiry as to whether the house was matrimonial or not before asking the court to forfeit the house, and that the best way to determine was to ask Mphwiyo’s wife.
Said Soko: “It is wrong for the ACB to conclude that the house belonged to Paul Mphwiyo only by looking at the lease document. We pray that forfeiture should be set aside and if the court wants to re-hear the matter, it should involve the wife.
“Considering that there is an urgent matter at hand, we also pray for stay of execution of the order until the court decides on an application for setting aside.”
Presiding judge Ruth Chinangwa has since reserved her ruling to April 23.
Mphwiyo, who is answering corruption charges related to Cashgate, is alleged to have fled the country last June, just as the High Court had earlier indicated that it would deliver its ruling on the matter.
His wife reported on June 26 2023 that he was missing and there were suggestions that he may have crossed Malawi borders.
On September 23 2023, Mphwiyo’s lawyer Michael Goba Chipeta said he would ask the court to discharge him from the case on the basis that he cannot represent a client who does not exist.
In 2015, the High Court ordered that Mphwiyo should travel to South Africa for medical attention on July 19 and return by August 2 the same year. But upon his return, Mphwiyo did not surrender his passport to the ACB.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
