DEC FAILS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AGAINST GBM
Lusaka, Friday, December 2, 2022 (Smart Eagles)
The Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) has failed to produce evidence to back its allegations against former defense Minister Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba .
This is in a matter where the state has charged Mr. Mwamba for money laundering, conflict of interest and being in possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime involving US$ 2 million and K20 million.
And when the matter came up for continued trial in the Lusaka Magistrate Court on Wednesday, November 30th, 2022, DEC Assistant Investigations Officer Mugala Kombe, 35, failed to back his claims that Mr. Mwamba abused his authority as Minister by allegedly facilitating the award of contracts to Curzon Global Limited Hong Kong in 2013.
Despite admitting that he was investigating Mr. Mwamba on the alleged offense, Mugala could not produce any evidence relating to the charge.
Mr. Mugala was also at variant with his earlier statement that he warned and cautioned the accused on all the charges relating to money laundering when the action was done by assistant Superintendent Sapaulu.
The witness could also not state the nature or line of business Curzon Global Limited Hong Kong nor its physical address and year of establishment.
During cross examination, Mugala also denied knowing whether Curzon Global Limited had any interests with the accused.
It was also heard during the proceedings that the investigator did not investigate anything about Curzon Global Hong Kong, a company Mr. Mwamba is alleged to have interests in.
Mugala was also at pains to explain his knowledge on the contents of the Cabinet Handbook that defines code of conduct for Ministers.
It was further revealed that Mugala had contact with an official from Ministry of Finance, a Mr. Kajoba, who advised that there was a Judgement in favour of Curzon Global Limited Hong Kong against the Zambian Government and also the instructions from the Attorney General to settle what is based on the judgement.
But Mugala expressed ignorance on the validity of the judgement and as to whether it has been set aside or not.
And when asked if he agreed that all the payments made under the Judgements were valid and legitimate, he responded in the negative.
“I Don’t Know.” He told the Court.
Meanwhile, on the abuse of authority charge, Mr Mugala stated that Investigations were conducted, where it was concluded that there was a predicate offence of conflict of interest, which led him to charge GBM for being in possession of alleged proceeds of crime.
But when asked how he came up with the charge If he did not investigate the case of conflict of interest, Mugala said investigations were conducted as a team.
“Your Honour the investigations were conducted as a team, in this case my colleagues from ACC for conflict of interest then I proceeded to charge Mr GBM for possession of Proceeds of crime,” He said.
It was further noted that Mugala acted on the assumption that ACC was right in their investigations when charging GBM on alleged Abuse of Authority.