Former ReserveBank of Malawi(RBM) governorDalitso Kabambe and hisco-accused are seeking toblock their prosecution overthe alleged illegal transferof K6.2 billion, citingimmunity under the CentralBank’s Code of Conduct.
Kabambe, former deputy governor Henry Mathanga, and former RBM secretary Samuel Malitoniare accused of influencing the RBM board in 2020to divert the bank’s profit to the government forCovid-19 disaster response.
The State says the moveviolated laws governingappropriation of profits.
During a hearing onFriday before the HighCourt’s Financial CrimesDivision in Lilongwe, thedefence argued that thetrio were immune fromprosecution unless a courtfirst determined they actedin bad faith.
Lead defence counselKhumbo Bonzoe Soko toldthe court: “Immunity isnot a defence. It exemptsone from criminalliability altogether.
“In this case, theprosecution was requiredto seek court approval toshow that the accused didnot act in good faith beforeinitiating charges.”
Soko’s arguments weresupported by fellow defencelawyers Kalekeni Kaphale,SC, Powell Nkhutabasaand FostinoMaele.
In response, Senior Statecounsel Kamudoni Nyasulumaintained that criminalproceedings are valid, sayingthe defence was wronglyapplying civil law standardsto a criminal case.
He argued that the Codeof Conduct’s immunityclause conflicted with theRBM Act, which permitsprosecutionwhere lawsare
breached.
But Soko pushed back,insisting the immunityonly applied to actionsdone in good faith and thatsuch protection did notcontradict the RBM Act.
“The presumption is thatactions of public officersare lawful unless provenotherwise. The court cannottreat an action as criminalmerely because the Statealleges so,” he said.
Soko further argued thatthe State should have initiateda preliminary inquiry beforea magistrate’s court to provelack of good faith.
On his part, Kaphale, whois a former Attorney General,added that the Code ofConduct was not subsidiarylegislation as claimed by theState, but rather, part of theRBM Act itself.
He, therefore, urged thecourt to uphold the accusedpersons’ immunity.
The court has since adjourned and is expected to rule on the immunity application on August 6 2025.
