Amos Chanda out on bail
AFTER spending close to a week in behind bars after he was jailed one year for stealing court records, former press aid Amos Chanda was granted bail pending appeal by the Lusaka magistrates Court yesterday.
Principal resident magistrate Irene Wishimanga admitted Chanda to free bail in the sum of K100, 000 in his own recognizance on a condition that he provides two working sureties who are residents of Lusaka who will be quizzed by the Court prior to his release.
She said Chanda would also have to surrender his passport to the clerk of Court.
Chanda was again sent to prison for a year within a space of two moths for theft of court documents.
On March 13, 2024, former president Edgar Lungu’s special assistant for press and public relations was jailed seven months together with his wife Mable and sister in-law Ruth Nakaundi for showering insults on officers of the Anti-Corruption Commission but were released on bail pending appeal.
On May 10, the Lusaka Magistrates Court again put him behind prison walls for 12 months for having stolen Court documents in a matter were he was was jointly charged with former RTSA boss Zindaba Soko and Intelligence Mobility Solutions board Chairman Walid El-Nahas for corrupt practices by a public officer in 2019.
Principal resident magistrate Irene Wishimanga ordered Chanda to also pay a meager K5, 000 for destroying the evidence and permanently depriving the judiciary of the case record.
In this case, Chanda was charged with theft and destroying evidence.
In her judgement magistrate Wishimanga said though there was no evidence to show that Chanda in his personal capacity got the original case record CRMP/001/2020 from the Subordinate Court it is evident that it is no longer in the court registry.
Magistrate Wishimanga wondered how Chanda knew that the case record had over a hundred pages according to his confessions in the voice recording if at all he had not stolen it.
She said the only evidence available before Court was the voice recording and the missing court record.
“The recording is the only evidence corroborated as revealed by the accused having burnt the case record,” she said.
She noted that though Chanda didn’t move Court documents from the registry directly , he might have been helped by someone to do so.
Magistrate Wishimanga said Chanda himself was clearly heard saying he took the case record which was a hand written copy of the ‘judge’ and set it ablaze it at his farm.
She said Chanda also mentioned about the US$45, 000 bargain amount he paid to the State in order for him to be released.
Magistrate Wishimanga said the word judge is used synonymously to magistrate by many and Chanda himself said the record would not be used as evidence in future, as he had burnt it in a rubbish pit at his farm and Soko lauded him for his actions which he referred to as mafia style.
She said Chanda was implicated in the recording produced by Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) officers, but he opted to remain silent in his defense.
“The accused needed to say something about the recording in his defense though he is not obligated to do so and prove he was the one at the hotel or not,” Magistrate Wishimanga said
“The accused had the evidential burden to say something that what was alleged was not the correct position as I have stated that he is not obligated to do so.”
She said the recordings were not choreographed by the State as alleged by the defense as Chanda was aware of the nolle prosequi and that, it was the DEC officer’s initiative to record him and his former co-accused during their meeting at Sarova hotel.
Magistrate Wishimanga said Chanda’s intention was to ensure that the case is not used as evidence in future and to deprive the judiciary of the case record permanently.
She said Chanda could have talked about any other case but he chose to talk about the case record were he was jointly charged with El-Nahas and Soko were a nolle prosequi was entered.
The Court said Chanda knew were the record was and he assured his former co-accused that when taken to court their matter would end in an acquittal as he had burnt it into ashes at his farm.
Magistrate Wishimanga said though there was no evidence that the record was to be used as evidence, the intention of burning it was to prevent its use or being traced and deprived the Judiciary permanently.
She said public prosecutor Mwansa Makasa had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found Chanda guilty as charged.
In mitigation his lawyer Timmy Munalula begged for leniency as his client was a first offender who was entitled to it according to principle.
His other lawyer Agrippa Malando who pleaded for the Court’s mercy requested for a non- custodial sentence on reasons that he is a family man to whom family members look up to for survival.
“The now convict is remorseful of his actions and pledges not to re-offend in future. These charges do not tie your hands in having mandatory minimum thereby placing him (Chanda) at your mercy,”said Malando.
“He is a family man to whom family members look up to for livelihood in meting out punishment we consider that you give him a non custodial to prove his remorsefulness him being a public figure the conviction is punishment enough.”
In handing down her sentence magistrate Wishimanga said; “The case record was taken from court for no reason as a lesson to you and would be offenders hereby sentence to 12 months imprisonment with hard labor in count one effective today and in count two I fine you
K5000 in default three months imprisonment.”
However Chanda wants to appeal his conviction and sentencing on five grounds.
He said magistrate Wishimanga erred in law and fact when she convicted him of the subject offenses when there was no evidence.
“The trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she avoided the evidence of the prosecution which clearly warranted the fact that there was no record stolen,” Chanda argued.
“The trial Court erred in law and in fact when it proceeded to convict the appellant
on a tempered piece of evidence.”
He said magistrate Wishimanga was wrong when she filled in the gaps by introducing
evidence to the record when there was no evidence showing that he stole
the record.
“The court below erred in law and in fact when it convicted the appellant based on a piece of evidence that was tempered with and fully discredited,” said Chanda.
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba