The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Gilbert Phiri, together with the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), has announced plans to appeal the acquittal of Livingstone Mayor Constance Muleabai on corruption-related charges.
Ms. Muleabai had been accused of soliciting K120,000 and corruptly receiving K180,000 as cash gratification from Mark Gabites. The alleged payments were said to be an inducement to facilitate a full remission of property rates owed by Zam Nuka Farm Limited to the Livingstone City Council, which had accumulated to more than K388,000.
In delivering judgment, Magistrate Trevor Kasanda stated that while solicitation had occurred, the prosecution did not meet the required burden of proof to demonstrate that the accused had solicited K120,000 from Mr. Gabites, who testified as a witness during the trial.
The court also found that the prosecution had proven that the accused corruptly obtained K180,000. However, it concluded that the evidence did not establish that the money was received from Mr. Gabites as outlined in the indictment. Instead, the court determined that the funds originated from Oliver Perry and were passed through another individual, Monde Sumbwa, before reaching the accused.
Following the ruling, the appellants filed six grounds of appeal. One of the grounds states that the court erred in law by failing to apply the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012 when it acquitted the accused, despite what they describe as prima facie evidence of an offence under Section 20(1).
The appellants further contend that the court erred in law by acknowledging that corrupt solicitation had occurred but still acquitting the accused on the basis that the prosecution failed to establish a direct connection between the accused and Mr. Gabites concerning the amounts specified in the charges.
I THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE NEED TO RE-EXAMINE THE COMPETENCE OF SOME OF THESE COURTS, EVEN ME A LAY PERSON CAN NOT AQUIT SUCH A CASE BECUASE:
1. SHE SOLICITED
2. SHE CORRUPTLY OBTAINED K180,000
ANYWAY, BASED ON THESE TWO FACTS THE OTHER COMPETENT WINGS OF GVERNMENT SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS APPEAL OR MAYBE EVEN RESTRUCTURE THE OFFENSE BASED ON THE ABOVE TWO FINDINGS
The arguments behind this ruling are so weak the bench as a whole should be embarrassed.
The money was corruptly solicited but not by Mr Gabites, the prosecution’s witness. So it’s alright for the mayor to keep it?
while solicitation had occurred… isn’t solicitation itself a crime?
And..don’t mayors and other politicians have ethical codes of conduct? So Zambia’s mayors’ ethics will allow her to remain mayor? With court-proven corrupt acts that a scared judge could not rule on? Mumba Malila’s Judiciary!!!