The High Court in Lilongwe has found that businessperson Caroline Savala has a case to answer on charges of theft and money laundering K84.9 million (US$206 068) suspected to have been stolen from government.
In her ruling made on Friday, Judge Fiona Mwale said the prosecution had submitted undisputed evidence in the case that Savala had, at different times in the bank account of her business Carmu Civil Engineering, two cheques amounting to K84 963 341.14 from the Ministry of Tourism when no construction contract was awarded to the accused.
Reads in part Mwale’s ruling: “From all I have argued, the accused person has a case to answer on both counts, subject to the amendment of the second count.”
This means that Savala, through her lawyers Ralph Kasambara and Wapona Kita, will have to defend herself in court against the charges.
In their arguments that Savala had no case to answer, her lawyers said the prosecution had failed to make out the elements of theft and money laundering through the five witnesses paraded during trial.
It was also found that while cheques amounting to K35.1 million and K49.7 million were deposited and cleared through Carmu Civil Engineering, the defence argued that she could not be said to have stolen the money because she submitted vouchers for payment, citing a Supreme Court ruling in the Kathumba vs The State of 2006.
But Mwale said: “In the present case, there’s no evidence that the accused submitted vouchers or demanded payments. All that has been established on the evidence is that she ended up with huge sums of money in her bank account for which there’s no contract on record.”
The judge added that the fact that the K84.9 million was not missing from the Ministry of Tourism budget indicated a sophisticated level of criminality.
“The case must, therefore, proceed to the hearing of defence,” Mwale said.
On the money laundering charge, the prosecution, represented by Kamudoni Nyasulu, Enock Chibwana and Dziko Malunda argued that Savala did not just claim the cheques for payment of work she did not do, she deposited the money in her business account to co-mingle with legitimately obtained funds.
On the defence’s argument that the offence of theft could not go together with that of money laundering, Mwale concurred that the charge was defective and proposed an amendment to the second count.
