TIZ, SACCORD comments dangerous

THE Committee of Citizens has lashed out at Transparency International Zambia (TIZ) president Reuben Lifuka and SACCORD information officer, Obby Chibuluma for criticising President Rupiah Banda over the acquittal of Regina Chiluba.

Citizens Committee executive director, Gregory Chifire said the committee was saddened by statements attributed to Mr Lifuka and Mr Chibuluma that the acquittal of Mrs Chiluba was because of the good relationship between Dr Chiluba and President Banda.

The TIZ president and Mr Chibuluma were yesterday quoted in some sections of the media as saying the acquittal by the Lusaka High Court of second Republican president’s wife was as a result of the close relationship between the former president and President Banda.

“Their assertions that Mrs Chiluba’s acquittal is because of the warm relations between President Banda and Dr Chiluba are dangerous. The panel of High Court judges looked at the charges, evidence and facts, and made their findings based on these issues,” he said.

Mr Chifire said as interested groups, the TIZ and the SACCORD should help the country by issuing statements that were factual and without undermining public institutions such as the judiciary.

He said his organisation welcomed the decision by the High Court to overturn the judgment of the lower court that had sentenced Mrs Chiluba to three years in prison.

“We wish the nation will finally put behind the issues relating to Dr Chiluba and allow him to enjoy a peaceful retirement,” he said.

The Lusaka High Court on Tuesday acquitted Mrs Chiluba on grounds that the lower court erred in law to convict her.

Justice Hamaundu said the lower court should have acquitted her on all counts and the appeal against the sentence would be academic.
[pullquote]“We wish the nation will finally put behind the issues relating to Dr Chiluba and allow him to enjoy a peaceful retirement,” he said.[/pullquote]

Justice Hamaundu said the moment the prosecution adduced evidence pointing to Dr Chiluba as being the source of the other money, which could not be accounted for by the appellant’s business then the suspicion that the appellant had stolen or unlawfully obtained the extra money, was effectively removed.

The judge said this evidence, therefore, destroyed a key ingredient required to establish a prima facie case for the offence of being in possession of property reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained.

“Had the court below been alive to the effect of that evidence, it would have noted that a key ingredient to establishing a prima facie case was missing. Therefore, at the close of the prosecution’s case, the court below ought not to have called the appellant to explain how and from where she got the money.

“It was open to the court, at that stage, to consider whether or not the evidence adduced did disclose another offence. The court was empowered under Section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to do so,” he said.

Mr Justice Hamaundu said if that was the position the court would have ordered an amendment of the charge to that offence and taken a fresh plea from the appellant and allowed the appellant to recall any witness.

“In our view, only one other offence could possibly have been disclosed by the evidence before the court below, namely, receiving money from Dr Chiluba knowing or having reason to believe that Dr Chiluba had feloniously stolen or obtained it. However, no attempt was made by the prosecution to show that Dr Chiluba had stolen or unlawfully obtained that money,” said Mr Justice Hamaundu.

On the last count where the appellant is alleged to have received the television set from Dr Chiluba knowing or having reason to believe the same to have been feloniously stolen or obtained.

The judge said the law stated that “Any person who receives or retains any chattel, money valuable security or other property whatsoever, knowing or having reason to believe the same to have been feloniously stolen, is guilty of a felony and liable to imprisonment for seven years, the prosecution had to prove that Dr Chiluba stole or unlawfully obtained the television set.

The court below found that the television set was ordered by State House and that upon its arrival, Dr Chiluba gave it to the appellant and that the court clearly misapprehended the facts relating to the television and did not address the important legal requirement for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

“We have considered the evidence on record and are of the view that there was no proof at all that the television set was feloniously stolen from State House by Dr Chiluba because, in this case, no prior complaint had been lodged by State House or Government that a television set destined for State House had gone missing,” he said.

He said the investigators, stumbled on documents which showed that the television set which was in the appellant’s possession had possibly belonged to State House and that even after the investigators had come across the television set, no one from the Government came forward to file a formal complaint and proved that the television set was ordered and intended for State House.

He said considering that the appellant had given an explanation as to how the television set came to be in her possession, there was need for the prosecution’s evidence to have something more than just those documents.

“Consequently, the findings of the court below were not supported by the weight of the evidence on this charge, as regards the ingredient the appellant knew that the television set was stolen or feloniously obtained, the appellant could not have suspected that the television set might have been stolen because she directly dealt with the supplier of the television set a Mr Tampiyappa and paid the television set with the money given to her by the former president who used to reside at State House.

“Under the circumstances, there was nothing unusual about the television set having been sent to State House. Mrs Chiluba could not have suspected the television set which was not even marked with letters ‘GRZ’ probably belonged to the Government of Zambia, her explanation was not rebutted, the lower court misdirected itself when it rejected the appellant’s explanation as to how she came into possession of the television set when in fact her explanation might have reasonably been true,” said the judge.

This was in a case in which Mrs Chiluba was facing three counts of failing to account for properties involving US$188,000 suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained, one count of failing to account for a motor vehicle in her possession, receiving a Toshiba 61 inch colour television set suspected to have been feloniously stolen or obtained and failing to account for cash amounting to K474 million suspected to have been stolen.

Meanwhile, some relatives of Dr Chiluba have said God has redeemed the former head of State and his wife Regina.

Speaking on behalf of Ndola-based relatives, Joshua Mubanga said the relatives and family friends of the former president had for a long time been praying to God to reveal the truth on all the charges which were levelled against Dr Chiluba and his wife.

“We thank God for answering our prayers and for setting free the former first family from a difficult and trying time,” Mr Mubanga, who is Dr Chiluba’s uncle, said.
[ Times of Zambia ]