Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Judge Musonda testifies in Katele's theft case

Judge Musonda testifies in Katele's theft case
By Noel Sichalwe
Tuesday June 10, 2008 [04:00]

LUSAKA High Court judge Philip Musonda yesterday testified how the Office of the President engaged a contractor to fence the High Court and Supreme Court premises at the cost of US $905,000. This is a matter in which MMD national secretary Katele Kalumba is jointly charged for corruption with former finance permanent secretary Stella Chibanda, former secretaries to the treasury Professor Benjamin Mweene and Boniface Nonde and former chief economist Bede Mpande.

Others are former Access Financial Services Limited directors Faustin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu.

Judge Musonda, 55, testified before Lusaka High Court Deputy Registrar Edward Musona that in 2000, he was employed as chief administrator of the judiciary and was also chairman of internal tender committee. He said as chief administrator, he had a hand in whatever work was supposed to be undertaken by the judiciary.

Judge Musonda said with regard to the fencing of the premises, he was approached by a man named Mushinge from the Office of the President who were undertaking an asset circularisation programme which they financed.

"I then showed them the boundary and the company Home Guard moved on site. So when the construction started, I got a call from Dr Badat, the then deputy minister of works and supply," judge Musonda said.

"He was very emotional that we the judiciary were constructing a fence without their approval and that although we were autonomous, it did not mean that we can do construction works without their approval.

"I told him that actually, the Office of the President are the ones that are constructing this fence. At that point, I decided to convene a meeting. I invited the chief architect Mr Jere from Ministry of Works and Supply who had earlier complained of poor workmanship in that the fence was very close to the road.

So in that meeting, there was myself as chair, Mr Sievu my assistant secretary then, Mr Shanzi who was administrative officer, Mr Jere, and from the Office of the President there was Mr Nkonde the late, may his soul rest in peace. Mr Nkonde told me that this project was approved at a higher level by then Minister of Works and Supply Mr Mandandi and that you could not be frustrated by the chief architect.

"I then told them to resolve the matter within the executive arm of government since both of them belonged to the executive. I later got a call from Mr Fred Siame, the then Auditor General who asked me where I had gotten the money to construct the fence since the Yellow Book did not reflect such a budget line. I told him the judiciary was not financing it but the Office of the President. So I left it at that."

Judge Musonda said Home Guard constructed a steel fence, guard houses and a police post at the premises. He said when he saw the contract from Task Force investigating officers, it had a schedule of payments, signature of then secretary to the treasury James Mtonga and the party to the contract was the Lusaka High Court.

He said the fencing programme of the High Court was conceived by then Secretary to the Cabinet Aldridge Adamson and that the execution of the asset circularisation programme was then located in the Office of the President.

"We did not request for this project, this was an initiative from the Office of the President," judge Musonda said.

In cross examination by lawyer Vincent Malambo and Professor Patrick Mvunga, judge Musonda said at the time of initiating the project, the initial contact was Mushinge who he said has not been charged with any offence. He further said there was nothing irregular in the contract to fence the premises signed by James Mtonga.

"I wouldn't think it was irregular because I was being told that they had authority and since I was not financing the project, I wasn't inquisitive. Since the financing was coming from the central point, I thought there was no problem," he said in response to a question as to whether there was any irregularity in the contract.

Hearing continues today.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home