Where is the ACB on Muluzi?

The revelation that the Anti-CorruptionBureau (ACB) has returned 63 vehicles it confiscated from president Muluzi, suspected to have been bought corruptly, is rather suspicious. Why should the ACB reach an out of court agreement to release the vehicles when they are part of the case? The reason that condition of the vehicles were deteriorating does not seem to hold water. Are the vehicles not part of the exhibit? If the ACB is still keeping blue books so no one changes ownership, is the ACB saying the vehicles will be stationary? If so, will they still not deteriorate? If the vehicles will be driven, is the ACB telling Malawians that one can drive a vehicle without a blue book?

More importantly, the ACB owes Malawians an explanation why Muluzi’s case is taking ages to conclude. It has remained silent for too long. While the Malawian justice system is not perfect, ACB shares much of the blame for delaying the case. Any high profile corruption case involving a public official accused of swindling billions of kwachas attracts public interest because it involves funds meant to benefit the people. The ACB should have prioritised Muluzi’s case so justice is done. If Muluzi is innocent as he claims, let him prove his innocence in court. Let him provide evidence that he bought the vehicles and acquired the K1.7 billion legally rather than try to make the case die a natural death. The money involved is just too huge to be ignored. This money could have made a difference in the lives of many poor Malawians, but ended up in the bank account of an individual.

During Bingu wa Mutharika’s presidency, the case was adjourned several times because Muluzi could not show up owing to sickness and other flimsy excuses. But after Bingu’s death, there have been no reports of Muluzi being sick, meaning he is fit to stand trial. However, the ACB did not make any attempt to resume the case.

That the ACB is still quiet raises suspicions that ‘a third force’ wants to drop the case. There are other conspiracy theories as well. Atupele, Muluzi’s son, is a minister in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. The DPP top brass may be sympathetic to him and stall the case or drop it altogether. Furthermore, Attorney General (AG) Kalekeni Kaphale has been defending Muluzi in the corruption case. How detached is he from it? Is there not likely to be conflict of interest?

There should no excuse this time around to delay the case.  Government has substantially increased ACB’s budget to fight corruption. It has received the highest budget allocation (167 percent).  Hence, the bureau should now prioritise Muluzi’s case to bring closure. The judiciary should be requested to assign judges to hear the case weekly so it is concluded in the shortest time. It beats any reason that the case which started in 2005 is still running hitherto. For the past two years, the ACB has deliberately maintained a low profile over the case, ostensibly for political reasons while the court has been adjourning the case unnecessarily over the years.

Any further delays will not only damage the already damaged credibility of the ACB, but will confirm people’s perceptions that the corruption watchdog pounces on poor people and it is used to persecute political opponents. The onus is on ACB to show it is a credible and independent body that does not work under the political influence of the Executive branch.