FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IS MODERATE BUT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE – CHIEF JUSTICE
CHIEF justice Mumba Malila says the fight against corruption is average hence there is need to improve the approach in combating graft.
Responding to questions from journalists during a media interaction yesterday, Justice Malila said there has been progression in tackling corruption but more needs to be built on.
“Am I happy with the corruption fight? It is a very difficult question but the only thing I can say is that there is quite a lot of scope for improvement. A lot of progress has been made but there is quite a lot of scope for improvement,”said justice Malila.
“In other words, I think there’s a lot of things that we can do differently and which we can do better I think. But for now, suffice it to say that some things have happened well, others have not happened well…without getting into specifics.”
Deputy Chief Justice Micheal Musonda who chipped in to help his boss said it was not the role of the chief justice to secure convictions as Courts only await for offenders to be presented before them and work with the evidence availed to them.
“The courts wait, they wait for people to bring those that offend against the law. So, the courts have to do what they have to do. They are not the prosecutors, they don’t bring the evidence,”he said.
“So, the police will arrest those who offend against the law, secure the conviction because all that the court has is the law. The judge or the magistrate only knows the law. The relevant fact to fit in the law to secure a particular outcome is the role of those that prosecute.”
Justice Musonda said the chief justice has to ensure that justice is served fairly and that is what should make him happy.
“So, the role of the court is the passing one. You wait for people to come and having come before the courts, these people who come before the courts must do what it takes to secure convictions. Otherwise, the law says, if there is a doubt to the guilt of someone, it is an obligation for a magistrate or a judge to acquit,” he said
“The chief justice has to be happy to see that justice has been served. When there is an acquittal, justice has been served and so it is when there is a conviction against the person who faced the relevant evidence and was properly prosecuted. So, these are the limitations. It is not about the disposition of the judiciary or the chief justice, no!”
He said the chief justice has not personal interest in institutional interest to see to it that people are jailed.
“(When) the State has got issues, they come before the courts. Those with grievances, we must prosecute in order to secure an outcome they deserve. If it is what they want to be achieved doesn’t meet the standard given by the work done by the courts, the hands of the judge or magistrate are tied,” he said
“The chief justice deals with these matters with a sense of detachment because he is not involved. His role and those of the judges is limited.”
Justice Musonda said investigative wings and the prosecution must put in effort in their work to achieve their intended goal.
“In ensuring that those who’ve run foul of the law are convicted. So the people who have to secure the conviction are those pointing the finger of accusation what happens if they poorly investigate? Then what do you do? If you poorly prosecute the Court’s role is limited,”said justice Musonda.
“We have heard from the executive to say take matters to court where you are hundred percent sure though you can’t tell whether you are hundred percent what more for the court if they haven’t met the standards? That’s the way it works in any civilized country.”
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba