SOME spirited attempts to interfere with the course of justice against me did occur but whatever the method of discharge I have been restored to the position that I was innocent, said Amos Chanda.
Former President Edgar Lungu’s press aide said that he was in court whenever the case came up but no single prosecution’s witness linked him to the charges that were levelled up against him.
Chanda was speaking after the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped charges of corrupt practices against him and his co-accused through a nolle prosequi.
Chanda was jointly charged with former Road Transport and Safety Agency chief executive officer Zindaba Soko and former Intelligent Mobility Solutions board chairman Walid El Nahas for corrupt practices by a public officer and possessing property suspected to be proceeds of crime involving US$11,000 and US$ 10,000.
When the matter came up for continuation of trial before chief resident magistrate Lameck Mwale, state advocate Sipholiano Phiri told the court that the state has discontinued the matter against all the accused through a nolle prosequi.
Magistrate Mwale told Chanda, Soko and El Nahas that they were discharged following the DPP’s decision to abandon the proceedings.
“In light of the nolle prosequi entered by the DPP in this matter, the proceedings against all the three accused are discontinued and the accused are hereby discharged,” said Magistrate Mwale.
Allegations in count one were that El Nahas between August 1, 2017 and May 31, 2019 corruptly gave US $10,000 to Soko a public officer, namely director and chief executive officer of RTSA as an inducement or reward in to facilitate the award of a contract to Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited by RTSA for the provision of advanced Road Safety Solutions and Services, a matter or transaction that concerns RTSA a public body.
Allegations in the second count were that El Nahas on the same dates corruptly gave $11,000 to Chanda, a public officer namely special assistant to the President for Press and Public Relations as an inducement or reward in order to facilitate the award of a contract to Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited by RTSA for the provision of advanced Road Safety Solutions and Services, a matter or transaction that concerns RTSA a public body.
In the third count it was alleged that between August 1, 2017 and May 31, Soko corruptly received $10,000 from El Nahas as an inducement to facilitate the award of a contract to Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited by RTSA.
It was alleged in the fourth count that Soko on the same dates possessed $10,000, property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
In count five, Chanda was accused of corruptly receiving $11,000 from Nahas as an inducement to facilitate the award of a contract to Intelligent Mobility Solutions Limited by RTSA for the provision of advanced Road Safety Solutions and Services.
It was further alleged in count six that Chanda on August 1, 2017 and May 31, 2019 possessed $11,000 suspected to be proceeds of crime.
Upon his discharge, Chanda said the prosecution brought a criminal allegation against him and have since withdrawn it therefore restoring him to the original position of being presumed innocent in line with Article 89 of the Constitution.
When asked if he was facing trumped up charges, Chanda said “that is a question that can be answered by those who brought the charges, as for me my face in the justice system is still as strong as it was before I was arrested.”
“Regrettably in my case I can tell you that some spirited attempts to interfere with course of justice against me did occur but that all is now in the past. I don’t want that ugly stain to crowd what may lie ahead of me in the future,” he said
Chanda said the justice system can still be trusted for courts to arrive at certain decisions depending on the evidence that has been produced.
“I have been in this court every single day and there has been no witness that has fingered me. Whatever the method of the discharge, I have been restored to the position that I was, innocent,” said Chanda. “If the re-arrest is done, I will be here (Magistrates’ Court). That does not violate the innocence. I can’t just wake up and say you are guilty of something. If they go ahead and re-arrest me, the court system will preside over that. From November last year, there should be sufficient time to decide whether the evidence exists or not so it does matter. It doesn’t bother me, if that (re-arrest) were to happen.”