Maravi

A judge who tells lies

A judge who tells lies
By The Post
Tue 29 May 2012, 13:30 CAT

THE Law Association of Zambia was very correct when it made the observation that judicial independence and judicial accountability are not inconsistent and, therefore, can co-exist. Truly, the Judiciary should not be ungovernable and untouchable. When judicial officers are wrong, they should admit that they are wrong.

And when they behave in a manner that can be said to be criminal, they should be made accountable for their criminal behaviour. They should never be made to think they are untouchable and that all other citizens are at their mercy with no remedy.

This attitude is what has eroded public respect for our Judiciary and should not be allowed to continue. Judges must be made accountable to the public for their constitutional role of applying the law fairly and impartially. And only a Judiciary that has integrity can protect the rights of citizens and deliver equal and fair justice.

When we complained about the way judge Nigel Mutuna and his friends were handling the case taken against us by the Development Bank of Zambia, these are some of the things we had in mind.

We are entitled to fair treatment and to equality before the law. We were in no way trying to put ourselves above the law or beyond the reach of the law. We had a legitimate complaint in the manner in which Mutuna and his friends were trying to fix us.

There was unfairness, injustice and malice in the way they were treating us. And this came out very clearly in Mutuna's judgment. Mutuna went to tell lies in his judgment. He attacked us without basis, just to trying to humiliate us.

He accused us of all sorts of wrongdoing which he cannot justify or prove. In a word, Mutuna's judgment was full of lies about us. And in calling him a liar, we are not being malicious, we are simply telling that which he did and that which we can prove. We can easily prove that Mutuna lied about us in so many ways.

And this was not accidental or an oversight, it was deliberate. It was part of the scheme to humiliate us, to fix us.

Those who are accusing us of wrongdoing in Zambian Airways should be patient and study the facts before rejoicing that they have got us. How did Mutuna arrive at the decision he did?

He knew that we had complained about the way our matter was handled and yet, instead of acting in a way that could have allayed our fears, he seemed oblivious to our concerns and determined to achieve a predetermined outcome. We say this with confidence because his decision ignored even facts accepted by those who had sued us - the Development Bank of Zambia.

We were sued because we signed a share buy-back guarantee. This document was meant to give the Development Bank of Zambia an exit from the shareholding in Zambian Airways if it became a shareholder.

The Development Bank of Zambia did not become a shareholder in Zambian Airways because they were not permitted to become shareholders by Rupiah Banda and his friends in a bid to fix Zambian Airways, which they were determined to close down.

The fact that the Development Bank of Zambia did not become a shareholder in Zambian Airways is admitted by themselves as plaintiffs. But Mutuna finds that they became shareholders, how and why? This was deliberate. Mutuna wanted to simply fix The Post.

Mutuna also looked for a way to fix Mutembo Nchito. Although no one was discussing how the loan by the Development Bank of Zambia was given to Zambian Airways, Mutuna brings it in and maliciously so.

This was not the issue before the court for its determination. Mutuna, on his own, opens this issue and decides that Mutembo misled the Development Bank of Zambia when it gave the loan. On what facts did Mutuna base this decision? What did Mutembo do to mislead the Development Bank of Zambia?

And who told him that the Development Bank of Zambia was misled by Mutembo? We ask this question because there is no one from the Development Bank of Zambia who has ever raised such a complaint against Mutembo. Moreover, was Mutembo an advisor to the Development Bank of Zambia when they gave the loan? Is a borrower supposed to advise the lender in such a transaction?

Mutuna also says we knew that the company would not pay back the loan when it borrowed. Does it make sense that we, as shareholders, would invest US$6.5million in the business if we felt that it was going nowhere? For sure, we are better businessmen than Mutuna and could not make such a stupid decision.

We knew that the aviation industry was not an easy one but we were confident that with effort and the cooperation of others, we would be able to give our country a national airline it urgently need. And we were not alone in this belief. Many banks that participated in the Zambian Airways project felt the same.

And these were experienced bankers whom we are still dealing with today and have not shown any loss of confidence whatsoever in us. No one spoke to these bankers. All of them are still alive, including those who were heading the Development Bank of Zambia at the time the loan was made to Zambian Airways.

These were not matters that were before Mutuna to decide. They are not issues we were asked to defend ourselves on by the plaintiffs. Mutuna imported the lies of Rupiah and his friends into his judgment.

We cannot fail to defend ourselves in front of a fair and impartial tribunal. Let those who are attacking us explain why and how the file of that case moved from judge Albert Wood to Mutuna.

Was what happened correct or acceptable? Let them tell us why we should accept to be treated in that clearly unfair and unjust manner? Let them tell the public that The Post has ever borrowed money from the Development Bank of Zambia or guaranteed any loan for anyone from that bank.

They know we are innocent, which is why all they can do is resort to lies. We are used to hearing politicians lie. But we cannot accept a judge of the High Court to tell lies about us or against us.
It is the worst form of malice for a judge to start accusing litigants without any proof.

We challenge Mutuna to produce evidence of how Mutembo misled the Development Bank of Zambia. For his information, that loan was brokered on behalf of Zambian Airways by another bank which is still in existence. And the managers who arranged that loan are all still alive. It was a syndicated loan with other two banks.

Mutembo was not the arranger of that loan as Mutuna maliciously purports. And it is one of these banks that helped The Post to invest in Zambian Airways. Without the assistance and advice of one of these banks that was part of the syndication, The Post would have never been able to invest in Zambian Airways.

So what is Mutuna talking about? What type of a judge is this that tells lies to humiliate and fix litigants? It is this type of judges that we have complained about! It is this type of unfair treatment that we have refused to accept.

And Mutuna and his friends know that they are caught and that is why they are using all sorts of gymnastics to run away from being made to account for their criminal behaviour. And in saying criminal behaviour, we are not in any way trying to be malicious, we are simply calling things by their right names. What they did was criminal and they know it.

And they are very scared to face a tribunal and account for their criminal conduct. They can run, but they can't hide. They have been caught. They went for the wrong people, in a wrong way and at the wrong time.

Labels: CORRUPTION, JUDICIARY

posted by MrK @ 3:26 PM