Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Times News
Published on 2024-04-03 08:17:48
High Court Judge Redson Kapindu delivered a ruling on Tuesday rejecting Vice President Saulos Chilima’s application for disclosure of the Malawi Defence Force (MDF)’s Council Minutes, deeming it premature. Kapindu stated that the sought documents were not relevant to the charges at this stage of the case but could potentially be admissible during trial if they had a bearing on fair trial proceedings. He emphasized that the defence could request the documents later, after the trial commences, with the requirement for establishing the relevance at that point.
Furthermore, Kapindu noted that if sensitive documents became pertinent to a fair trial during proceedings, the State, represented by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), would need to decide whether to disclose such information in open court or terminate the case to protect national security. To ensure confidentiality, the judge allowed the defence team’s lead lawyer, the Attorney General, and the ACB lead lawyer to view the sensitive documents on a ‘see basis’ under oath of secrecy within a chamber setting where the MDF, as the custodians, would present the documents to the team.
In response to the ruling, ACB Chief Legal and Prosecutions Officer Imran Saidi expressed the State’s commitment to ensuring the case’s continuation, stating that the defence’s request for specific MDF documents was dismissed due to a lack of demonstrated relevance. Saidi affirmed that the State would strive to uphold the trial’s integrity once the defence establishes the significance of the sensitive documents in question.
The requested documents included the Defence Council Meeting minutes authorizing the procurement of armoured personnel carriers (APCs), a Memorandum to President Lazarus Chakwera seeking approval for APC procurement from Malachite FZE, and a memo from President Chakwera responding to the MDF Commander’s request. Defence lawyer Khumbo Soko acknowledged the court’s decision, highlighting the opportunity for the lead counsel to review the material and advise accordingly, adding that the ruling allowed for a thorough assessment of the documents’ content.
Moreover, the defence pressed for disclosure of a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK’s National Crimes Agency and ACB, outlining the treatment of UK-provided information as intelligence rather than courtroom evidence. The defence argued that this document had been shared in other Sattar-related cases except Chilima’s. The case was adjourned to May 3, 2024, for further discussion on the disclosed documents and plea-taking.
Overall, the court’s ruling emphasized the importance of relevance and fairness in the trial process, offering a balanced approach to addressing sensitive information while ensuring transparency and upholding national security interests. The case will continue to unfold as both the defence and the State navigate the complexities of the legal proceedings.
Read the original article on The Times
