The Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has closed its case against Amos Chanda with another of their witnesses contradicting five earlier witnesses and himself repeatedly when he gave testimony before court.
Arresting officer Joseph Mbewe also caused laughter in court when said he did not know whether Amos Chanda broke the law or not because they are thousands of laws in Zambia and was therefore not definite what to specifically narrow his answers to regarding the charges he laid against Amos Chanda, his wife Mable, and sister-law Ruth Mulenga.
This is the trial in which Chanda and the co-accused have been charged with insulting language against ACC officers who violently searched his properties on October 27,2021.
In response to defence lawyer Timmy Munalula during cross examination, state witness Mbewe said in the video in which Amos Chanda is alleged to have insulted ACC officers, Mbewe said with regard to the charges before court, I don’t know which law he broke.
He also said said he does not understand the difference between “one idiot” and “one of these idiots” but later said he wishes to keep both statements on the court record.
The witness said he did not visit any of the alleged crime scenes at all because it was not necessary to do so since he had made up his mind to arrest the accused based on the testimonies of his fellow ACC officers who undertook to the searches against Mr Chanda.
Asked what he understood the word idiot meant, the witness said “it is someone who is not wise, my Lord.”
The witness also said he grew up in a home where he had sisters and had access to drawers where where they kept their underwear.
“Oh, you are one of the kind witness” the defence counsel retorted. The witness was insisting that it was normal for male officers to search a woman’s room in their absence.
The witness said it was not necessary to visit the purported crime scenes before charging the accused.
Mr Mbewe also said Amos Chanda did not insult any of the officers in their personal capacity but generally as officers from the commission.
The witness also said officers identified themselves to Chanda, contradicting five other earlier witnesses who said the officers did not produce the identity cards.
But he later said it was right for the ACC officers not to cooperate with Mr Chanda and therefore their refusal to produce identity cards was in order.
He later retracted and said the officers did not introduced themselves and that the law did not allow them to refuse to identify themselves.
He said the identity card was the only way to identify themselves and that the person under search was entitled to demand for the identity cards.
The defence also reminded the arresting officer did not carry out an objective investigation because all his witnesses but one were ACC officers, some of them his seniors who could order him to do something.
The defence lawyer said failure to interview other independent people other the accused and investigators amounted to dereliction of duty.
Chief Resident Magistrate Dominic Makalicha has set March 23,2022 as the date for ruling for case or no case to answer Ends
SOURCE: Smart Eagles