The High Court of Malawi has granted Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) acting director general Hilary Chilomba and lawyer Oscar Taulo permission to start judicial review proceedings on their disqualification for the ACB top job.
The duo sought the judicial review after Ombudsman Grace Malera disqualified them for purportedly falling short on professional and other requirements for the position.
In her determination, the Ombudsman asked the Ministry of Justice, as the recruitment authority, to disqualify Chilomba and Taulo and restart the process of recruiting a new ACB director general.
However, the two argue that the Ombudsman overstepped her mandate in ordering their disqualification and that she erred in carrying out investigations and making a determination based on an anonymous complaint.
The High Court has since granted the duo leave to move for judicial review of the Ombudsman’s decision, but has reserved a ruling on an application for an injunction suspending execution of the Ombudsman’s order.
In his ruling on Friday, Judge Simeon Mdeza ordered that the judicial review be heard on March 14 and that the parties in the matter should make their submissions.
He said: “The claimant shall file the judicial review process within seven days from the date of the order herein.
“The defendant shall file defence or response to the judicial review, herein 14 days from the date of service of the application.”
Chilomba’s lawyer Gift Katundu has since hailed the court’s decision to allow the complainants to make an application for judicial review adding the applicant will file the application as directed.
On his part, Taulo said the Ombudsman erred in carrying out investigations and making a determination based on a complaint by an anonymous person.
Section 6 (5) of the Corrupt Practices Act stipulates that for one to be appointed as ACB director general, they should satisfy both academic and professional qualifications in the fields of law, law enforcement and finance.
The job advertisement for the post said applicants were supposed to possess a master’s degree in the said fields and 10 years postwork experience with five of those years in the senior management or hold a bachelor’s degree with 15 years of experience with five of them in senior management.
In her determination, Malera said the advertisement itself was inconsistent with the law because it only emphasised the academic qualifications and did not mention the professional qualification which is another important legal requirement for the post.
The Ombudsman determined that Taulo did not meet the professional requirement but satisfied all academic qualifications while Chilomba failed to meet the five years’ work experience at senior management level. having only three years.
