Weird, very weird

 As a columnist for at least 15 years, I built a readership base locally and internationally—great people who would look forward to reading Cut the Chaff every Saturday in this paper and on our online platforms.

Unfortunately, over the past two years, the frequency of my entries has been sporadic. The reasons maybe a subject for another day, but one thing is crystal clear: you deserve consistency and for some time, I could not guarantee it. But I do so now.

I lost my footing and with this entry, I believe I have found it. I will do everything I can to regain your faith—and following. Most importantly, I apologise for my hiatuses.

While I have been away, a lot has happened, with some, especially recently, bordering on the bizarre.

For instance, there is this case, William Bilderberg versus the State, in which the man also known as Willem Steenkamp is suspected to have moved into Malawi $20 million that Fiscal Police and the Financial Intelligence Authority allege are proceeds of crime. Following his arrest, Bilderberg has applied for bail at least four times without success. He was finally granted bail this week.

Of all the weird things about the case is a prosecution so desperate to have the person they accuse of serious financial crimes released on bail—actually working hand-in-hand with the defence lawyers to convince the presiding Chief Resident Magistrate (CRM) at the time—conduct the man on the bench said was akin to “match-fixing”.

In his last ruling on the bail application on December 15 2023, CRM ChisomoMsokera was so disgusted by the spectacle that he strongly rebuked both defence and State lawyers involved in the matter.

He thundered: “Before we conclude, we must express our concern with the way this application has been handled by the bar. We do not think that the bar is incompetent. We think that the bar is deliberately putting the interests of the applicant ahead of the interest of justice. This is contrary to counsel’s duty to the court. And it is more worrying when the prosecution decides to participate in such an approach to the administration of justice.”

Msokera, having clearly demonstrated his distaste for the bar on the matter, proceeded to recuse himself from the case, saying it would be hard for him to be seen as impartial and not prejudiced against the applicant in the eyes of certain people given his stated position.

I believe there is more to this Bilderburg case than meets the eye; too many peop l e—f rom lawyers to politicians; from top government officials and political operatives to some police officers.

One way or the other, the truth will come out—it will be sooner rather than later. I see eggs being plastered all over the faces of the so-called big fish and the corridors of power. Just watch this space.

Meanwhile, we have a government whose agencies are pulling in dif ferent directions. In one instance, the Director of Public Prosecutions is pursuing criminal charges against Paramount Holdings Limited and some of its directors for allegedly forging documents and submitting them to a government procuring entity for a tender.

A few months after the arrests, another government arm, the Ministry of Education, awards the same company a multi-billion kwacha deal even before the case takes off in earnest in the courts.

How does that even begin to make sense? We know the suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but what happened to moral clauses? Shouldn’t that tender have been put on hold until the company and its directors are cleared or indeed shouldn’t the contract have been cancelled and retendered?

Whatever happened to corporate liability? Because if a corporation, which is recognised as a legal person, can own property, enter into contracts and execute those contracts then it has an obligation to follow the law and be punished for it where there is reason to believe that they it or its officers may have been involved in illegal activities.

Moreover, there have been instances when some companies have won bids, but lost the deals after the Anti-Corruption Bureau discovered alleged malpractices, so why is this company being treated dif ferently? The same government interdicts civil servants who are answering criminal charges pending court outcomes, so why the double standards?

It is such casual approaches to potential criminal misconduct as demonstrated by the Ministr y of Education that encourage fraud and corruption in public procurements, leading to loss of tens of billions of the already meagre tax kwachas and even the unfai r ly crowding out of i n d i g enous-owned businesses who do not have the financial and political muscle to get away with corporate malfeasance.