Police question Simeza in Itowala murder conspiracy
By Chibaula Silwamba
Wed 17 Nov. 2010, 04:00 CAT
POLICE yesterday interrogated Lusaka lawyer Robert Simeza in connection with investigations in the murder of Lusaka businessman Sajid Itowala.
And Simeza’s lawyer, John Sangwa - who accompanied him to Police Force Headquarters for questioning said they will only talk in court as he referred all queries to the police. Sources close to Simeza said he arrived at Police Service Headquarters around 09:30 hours and was briefly interviewed.
The sources said there was a possibility that Simeza might be summoned again for further questioning. When contacted for comment, Sangwa declined to explain what transpired.
“Speak to the police; they will tell you more. We don’t comment on such things. You know that. We comment in court, we will comment in court. Speak to the police, they will tell you more about what transpired,” said Sangwa.
And when contacted, police spokesperson Ndandula Siamana expressed ignorance about the summoning of Simeza and former president Frederick Chiluba’s press aide Emmanuel Mwamba.
“I have just read about that in the newspapers as well,” said Siamana.
The police on Monday summoned Simeza to appear before them to help in their investigations of Itowala’s murder. The police also summoned Mwamba in connection with the alleged contemptuous anonymous articles published on Zambia Watchdog online discussing Itowala’s murder case, which is before Supreme Court judge Gregory Phiri in the Lusaka High Court.
Last week, judge Phiri ordered a quick and thorough investigation to identify the author and publisher of contemptuous and scandalous articles that have been circulating on Zambian Watchdog on the Mathew Mohan trial.
On Monday, police summoned Mwamba but he could not show up as he is purported to be out of town. He was expected to report himself to police yesterday but this did not happen by press time.
And police sources disclosed that they were aware that Mwamba was in Lusaka although he claimed to be out of town.
"He can run, but he will not hide. Very soon we'll close up on him," said the police source.
Labels: JOHN SANGWA, ROBERT SIMEZA
Read more...
Simeza initiated plans to bribe judge, magistrate — Mohan
Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 8:26
INK Tech managing director Mohan Mathews yesterday told the Lusaka High Court that Lusaka lawyer Robert Simeza allegedly initiated the plans to bribe a magistrate and judge to secure the bail of his convicted client, Rathi Kumar using the late Sajid Itowala.
Testifying in his defence before Supreme Court Judge Gregory Phiri sitting as High Court judge, Matthews said Mr Simeza was the one who introduced the deceased to him so that they could work together and help Kumar flee the country.
Matthews testified that the magistrate was allegedly first paid K150 million by the deceased after getting it from him and in turn the magistrate advised Rathi to behave like a mental patient in court.
This move was meant for him to recommend Rathi to go for a mental check up at Chainama Hospital, which was done and later be assisted to flee the country from the mental hospital.
This is in a case where Mohan, is jointly charged with Crown Paints brothers Idris and Shabir Patel with one count of murder.
It is alleged that the trio in July last year, whilst acting together with other persons unknown, murdered Itowala.
He told the court that earlier Mr Simeza had allegedly asked him to inform Rathi that they come up with plans to assist him flee the country and signed a cheque to purchase two air tickets, for Rathi not in his real names and the one for his mother in law, a Mrs Pitti.
Mr Simeza then organised to meet a National Airports official Fred Malama who was also allegedly bribed to ensure that he helped him with a check-in plan prior to the duo’s arrival at the international airport and he gave them two boarding passes.
He said on April 29 last year, Mr Simeza allegedly organised everyone involved alongside Rathi’s mother-in-law and they all went to Chainama to assist Rathi escape from hospital enroute to the airport.
“Shaun and Chileshe broke the main gates to Chainama mental prisons, switched off the lights but were disturbed by the alarm system and immediately ran away before they could rescue Rathi. The security men rushed to the prisons section and got Rathi back to Kamwala Remand Prisons.
Matthews said Mr Simeza allegedly advised him that there were so many ways of killing a rat and that Rathi’s father would be in the country to sort out the mess, and when he arrived he called for a meeting with Sajid.
It was at this point that Sajid allegedly told Rathi’s father, Mr Simeza and Matthews that he needed more money to assist Rathi with bail since by then he had already been convicted to four years.
He said his father organised altogether US$750,000, $450,000 for the judge who was going to handle the bail at the High Court and the $300,000 for the magistrate who allowed the bail application.
The defence continues today.
[Times of Zambia]
Labels: BRIBERY, MATTHEW MOHAN, MOHAN MATTHEWS, ROBERT SIMEZA
Read more...
Judge was bribed for bail, says Mohan
By Namatama Mundia
Tue 19 Oct. 2010, 04:00 CAT
Inktech managing director Matthew Mohan yesterday told the Lusaka High Court that a judge was paid US $200,000 in order to grant bail to Lusaka businessman Anuj Kumar Rathi who was convicted by the magistrate’s court while a magistrate received US $250,000 in the same case.
And Mohan told the court that Lusaka lawyer Robert Simeza introduced late Cyclone Hardware proprietor Sajid Itowala to him in their quest to help Rathi escape from lawful custody. Meanwhile, Simeza has withdrawn from the case as amicus curiae or friend of the court.
This is in a case in which Mohan is jointly charged with Idris Patel and Shabia Patel with murder. It is alleged that the three, acting with others unknown, brutally murdered Itowala in July last year.
Opening his defence in the matter before judge Gregory Phiri yesterday, Mohan claimed that Rathi’s father a Mr G.K. Rathi released US $750, 000 which was supposed to be paid to the judge and a magistrate. The judge was supposed to receive US $300,000 while US $450,000 was supposed to be received by the magistrate.
Mohan said Mr G.K. Rathi handed the full amount of US $750,000 to Simeza who later gave the money to Sajid. He, however, said Itowala did not give the judge and the magistrate, whom he identified as driving a Volvo car, the full amount as agreed in the meeting. He said Sajid gave the magistrate whom he met at Jazz Club in Lusaka’s Longacres area US $250,000 while the judge received US $200,000 which was taken to his residence in Woodlands.
Mohan said that despite the judge receiving the US $200,000, he did not grant bail to Rathi which was supposed to be in the sum of K100 million.
Mohan said about a week before bail was denied, Simeza called for a meeting at Pamodzi Hotel for an urgent discussion. He said during that meeting, Itowala complained that the judge phoned him to complain that Rathi’s relative phoned from India and complained that the bail had taken long.
Mohan also said Itowala informed the meeting that the judge was not comfortable with his involvement in money issues. He also said the judge was going to reject the bail application because of his involvement.
However, Mohan told the court that Rathi’s father demanded that his money be paid back.
Earlier in the morning, Mohan told a packed courtroom that the late Itowala informed a meeting which was convened at Pamodzi Hotel by Rathi’s father after efforts to have his son escape from lawful custody failed that he had fruitful discussions with a magistrate and a judge both of who were going to help in the matter.
“When I arrived at Pamodzi Hotel, I proceeded to the lobby where I found the bodyguards for Mr Rathi who directed me to the east wing. I found Mr Simeza, Sajid Itowala and the old man Mr Rathi. Mr Rathi asked Sajid how his meeting was. He said he had actually better news because he not only met the judge but the magistrate who was going to handle the matter,” Mohan narrated.
Mohan said Itowala informed them that the meeting he had with the judge was fruitful.
“He (Itowala) said Mr Simeza should do the bail application and it was going to be allocated to the right judge,” Mohan said.
He said Itowala also informed them that he had met the magistrate who was going to handle the matter. Mohan said the magistrate was supposed to convict Rathi because the case was very sensitive considering that his co-accused, Lieutenant General Wilford Funjika, was already convicted and the chances of him being released were slim.
He said Itowala told the meeting that the total amount to be paid to the magistrate and judge was US $750,000.
“Mr Rathi said he had no problem with the money but wanted deliverance,” he said.
Mohan said Rathi asked for five working days in which he was going to process the payment.
Earlier, Mohan told the court that Simeza is the one who introduced Itowala to Mr G.K. Rathi at Pamodzi Hotel describing him as a well-connected businessman with both the judiciary and the police.
“Mr Simeza made the introductions and after that Mr Rathi said he wanted to know the way forward, Mr Simeza said ‘we proceed with the trial at the subordinate court and we apply for bail in the Lusaka High Court’,” he said.
“Mr Rathi gave a go-ahead and said what we needed to put in place in order to succeed. At this point Sajid Itowala chipped in and said the same magistrate at the subordinate court was his friend and that in that area, we should not worry. He (Itowala) said the bail application in the High Court should be strategically planned so that it goes to the right person because there are tendencies to reject it if you don’t know some people,” he said.
Mohan said Itowala received a call from a person from High Court who said they should not talk too much but meet at Portico Restaurant.
He said Simeza commented that Itowala was well connected and that the people in the judiciary were in his pocket.
“Sajid mentioned that they had to make sure the finances were solid,” Mohan testified.
He said Itowala then excused himself and said he had to go and meet the judge at Portico.
“After Sajid left, Mr Simeza continued praising him that this Indian gentleman was going to deliver,” Mohan said.
And Mohan told the court how he and Simeza planned to help Rathi escape from lawful custody.
He said Simeza organised two men, Sean – a coloured - and a Mr Chileshe, with his help. He said Sean and Chileshe were supposed to break a lock at Chainama Hospital Prison where Rhati was taken for the medical experts to determine whether or not he could stand trial. He said as they tried to do that, the alarm went on and they ran away and the prison officers shot in the air.
When this was happening, Mohan said, he and Simeza were parked outside Chainama Hospital waiting. Mohan said when Simeza saw an ambulance entering Chainama Hospital, he phoned Sean and Chileshe asking them to leave immediately, and they complied. He said Simeza drove behind the ambulance and saw Rhati in there. He phoned Mohan who was in another vehicle saying he had seen Rhati in the ambulance for the prison and was being taken to Kamwala Remand Prison. At that stage, they left everything for the next day.
Mohan said the next day, he went straight to Kamwala Remand Prison to take some breakfast for Rhati. He said prison officers there asked him how he knew that Rhati had been moved there and he explained that the officers at Chainama told him so.
Hearing continues today.
Labels: BRIBERY, CORRUPTION, COURTS, JUDICIARY, MATTHEW MOHAN, ROBERT SIMEZA
Read more...
LAZ fines Sangwa, Simeza for professional misconduct
By Patson Chilemba
Sun 21 Feb. 2010, 04:02 CAT
THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) disciplinary committee has established professional misconduct on the part of Lusaka lawyers John Sangwa and Robert Simeza and ordered each respondent to pay 100,000 penalty units about K18 million within 30 days.
This is according to a ruling in the matter of Chimbeka Sakala and in the matter of Sangwa and Simeza delivered by the LAZ disciplinary committee on October 21, 2009. Joan Irvin was the complainant, with Simeza and Sangwa being the first and second respondents respectively.
Facts of the matter were that a complaint was made to the disciplinary committee of LAZ on April 6, 2004 against the practitioners by the complainant of professional misconduct.
The complaint was heard by the committee on February 2, 2008 and April 10, 2008 and counsel Fraser Chishimba represented the Legal Practitioners Committee while Vincent Malambo, SC, represented the practitioners and both the complainant and the practitioners gave evidence on oath.
The application before the committee was that Sangwa and Simeza be struck off the roll of practitioners for alleged professional misconduct.
According to the affidavit and further affidavit both sworn on April 6, 2004 and filed in support of this complaint, the reasons for the applications could be summarized as follows:-
“(i) The two practitioners now practicing under the style and name of Simeze Sangwa and Associates, while working as associates at Messrs. R.M.A Chongwe and Company represented the complainant between the years 1991 and 1993 as a client of that firm. (ii) That in the process of acting for the complainant Mr. Robert Mbonani Simeza on 17th January, 1992 filed into court an application for a vesting order relating to the following properties:- a) Game Farm No. 4678 Lusaka, b) Game Farm No. 4242 Lusaka, c) Main house namely subdivision 9 of Subdivision B of Farm Number 452a in extent 50 acres,” the committee stated.
The said summons for a vesting order was supported by an affidavit sworn and signed by Simeza as an advocate in the firm of Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company seized with the matter.
The properties in question were originally owned by Leopard Investment Company Limited in which both Oliver John Irwin the complainant's former husband, and the complainant were originally the only shareholders, but later Jolyon Oliver Irwin the son of Oliver John Irwin became another shareholder.
The committee stated that Oliver John Irwin held the majority shareholding and the three were able to decide for the company.
There were later preference shareholders but these did not possess any voting rights.
“(e) That both practitioners took and accepted instructions from Leopard Investment Company Limited and commenced opposing and challenging the basis upon which the deputy registrar granted the Vesting Order that transferred and registered the properties into the complainant's name from Leopard Investment limited 10 years earlier in compliance with agreed settlement of property and maintenance order registered and sealed at the High Court on the 18th September 1990,” the affidavit stated in part.
“(f) That the said practitioners commencing from July 2001 as advocates now for Leopard Investment Company Limited challenged in different courts before different judges the complainant's ownership of the two game farms, the main house and the vesting order.
In addition, Mr John Peter Sangwa applied to the Director of Public Prosecutions and was granted a fiat to prosecute the complainant for allegedly forging a document to wit; and agreed settlement of property and maintenance Order that was presented to the registrar of Lands and Deeds to secure her registration as owner of the said properties.”
The affidavit stated that the two practitioners had successfully persuaded the registrar of Lands and Deeds to cancel the very title deeds they helped the complainant obtain to the properties that constituted her divorce settlement on the alleged ground that title thereto was procured by fraudulent means.
That in 2002, the practitioners commenced proceedings in cause Number 2002/HP/0997 in which they managed to take away the complainant's property, rendering her homeless.
The affidavit stated that there was very little interaction between the lawyers within the firm in the prosecutions of instructions on behalf of various clients.
The affidavit stated that during the time Sangwa was at Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company he never took instructions from the complainant, and never dealt with her personally nor did he have knowledge of the facts of her case.
The affidavit stated that the practitioners left Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company in 1993 and in 1994 set up their own firm under the style of Simeza, Sangwa and Associates, and that although both practitioners each had 50 per cent stake in the firm, they were each responsible for a number of clients.
The affidavit stated that in 2001, eight years after leaving Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company, Sangwa was consulted by officers of Leopard Investment Limited who wanted to know the legality of the agreement which had been signed by Oliver Irwin and the complainant Irwin as director and shareholder of Leopard Investment Limited committed himself, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled, to transfer certain assets of the company as part of the property settlement after divorce.
Sangwa later learnt that the agreement was prepared in 1989 before both practitioners had graduated from law school.
The matter was heard on February 29, 2008 and April 10, 2008 and the committee made the finding that the complainant was the client of R.M.A Chongwe during the period 1991 to 1993, and the firm handled her divorce and property settlement with her former husband Oliver Irwin.
The committee stated that the matter was handled at some point by Simeza who made an application to court in connection with a vesting order.
“Mr. John Sangwa never dealt with the complainant while at Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company,” the committee stated.
The committee stated that in 2001, eight years after leaving R.M.A Chongwe and Company, Sangwa was consulted by Leopard Investment Limited to know the legality of the agreement which had been signed by Irwin and the complainant.
The committee stated that instructions were accepted by Sangwa which culminated in the complainant being dispossessed of the property she received as a result of the vesting order and the files were transferred to Messrs. Malambo and Company.
“Rule 33(1) (f) and (g) of the Statutory Instrument No. 51 of 2002 states as follows: ì33 (1) A practitioner shall not accept any brief if to do so would cause the practitioner to be professionally embarrassed under the following circumstances:
(a) there is or appears to be some conflict or a significant risk of some conflict either between the interests of the practitioner, or of any partner or other associate of the practitioner and some other person or between, the interests of anyone or more of their clients;” the committee stated. “or
(b) the matter is one in which there is a risk of a breach of confidences entrusted to the practitioner, or to any partner or other associate, by another client or where the knowledge which the practitioner posses(es) of the affairs of another client would give an advantage to the new client.
“Although the alleged misconduct occurred before the coming into force of the Legal Practitioners Rules, S.I. No. 51 of 2002, we are satisfied that the rules of 2002 are a mere codification of the common law practice rules pertaining to confidentiality.”
The committee stated that it was its considered view that there was no ethical wall or Chinese Wall at either Messrs R.M.A Chongwe and Company or Messrs. Simeza, Sangwa and Associates to sufficiently isolate Dr Chongwe or indeed Simeza to prevent them from tainting Sangwa.
“This is so even in the light of the explanation given with regard to how files were handled by individual advocates,” the committee stated.
The committee stated that both advocates breached the common law rule which required an advocate who had acquired confidential information concerning a former client during the course of acting for that client, not to accept instructions to act against the client as enshrined in rule 33 (1) (f) and (g) of Statutory Instrument No. 51 of 2002.
The committee stated that as partners who had previously worked in the same law firm and later on set up their own practice, they should not have taken instructions from Leopard Investment Company Limited in a matter involving the complainant which had been dealt with by Simeza even if it was done under the supervision of Dr Chongwe.
“Non compliance with the rules amounts to professional misconduct or conduct unbefitting a practitioner (see rule 41). The disciplinary committee finds the 1st and 2nd Respondents in breach of professional conduct. Does the breach warrant recommending the removal of Advocates from the Roll of Practitioners?
Although the action of the respondents in the Committee's view may not amount to serious disgraceful misconduct, it's nonetheless misconduct,” the committee stated. “However, it must be noted that most disqualifications from practicing law were concerned with dishonesty.
In considering the appropriate alternative punishment to be given to the Respondents, the Committee has taken into account the fact that the Respondents withdrew from representing Leopard Investment Company Limited when the anomaly was brought to their attention.
An apology at the right time could have saved the committee and the parties' valuable time.
“The following is therefore, the ruling of the Committee: (i) that the Respondents be admonished for their misconduct; and (ii) that each Respondent is hereby ordered to pay a penalty of 100,000 penalty units within 30 days hereof.”
When contacted for comment over the matter, Sangwa asked this author to talk to LAZ first.
When reminded that he had been called to get his side of the story, Sangwa responded: “But you don't normally do that, do you? No, you never do that. You have written about me before without even talking to me. Speak to LAZ first, they will have something more constructive than I would have.”
The ruling was signed by then Attorney General Mumba Malila and members Mwenya Lwatula, S.C. Marjorie Johnson-Mwenda, Albert Wood and Abha Patel.
Labels: JOHN SANGWA, LAZ, ROBERT SIMEZA
Read more...
Chiluba's lawyers want Task Force chairman cited for contempt
By Noel Sichalwe
Tuesday May 13, 2008 [05:01]
CHILUBA's lawyers Robert Simeza and John Sangwa yesterday applied that Ndola High Court Registrar Jones Chinyama should cite Task Force chairman Max Nkole for contempt of court. This follows Nkole's statement that the Task Force was ready to drop charges against former president Frederick Chiluba if he surrendered the money he stole.
This is a matter in which Chiluba is separately charged with Access Financial Services Limited (AFSL) directors Faustin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu. Chiluba is charged with theft of about US $488,000.
Making the application before Chinyama who is trial magistrate in Lusaka, Simeza said he had raised similar concerns in the past and that the court should now take some appropriate action under section 116 (1)(d) of the Penal Code.
He said in the Saturday Post of May 10, 2008, there was an article in which Nkole said Chiluba and the other accused persons could have the proceedings against them dropped if they surrendered the money they stole.
"He went further and stated that he was prepared to cut a deal if they..
returned the plundered or stolen assets," Simeza said. "Your Honour, this statement is being issued strategically, two days before the accused persons open their defence before this court. As far as Mr Nkole is concerned, it is a foregone conclusion that the accused persons stole the money, which they stand charged and are appearing before this court. Your Honour, this statement ought to be looked at perhaps seriously as it is made to affect the accused person's conduct of their defence before you."
Simeza said it was clear that Nkole's intention, especially considering the timing, was meant to prejudice the accused persons when they were to open their defence.
He said Nkole's statement intended to undermine the court proceedings and urged the court to summon Nkole to show cause why he could not be convicted for being in contempt of court under section 116 of the Penal Code.
"Your Honour, such conduct may perhaps be ignored if such statements were coming from maybe politicians or people that are not really connected to these prosecutions. But your Honour, we are dealing with a qualified lawyer and he is the person who has caused the accused to appear before you.
Why can't he wait for the outcome of these proceedings? If in fact in his mind the accused persons are already guilty, why are we here?" he asked. "I think it is important that the correct message is sent out there, otherwise if nothing is done, this practice which unfortunately has continued, will be taken as an accepted practice when in fact it is not. Surely, such a statement lowers the authority of this court. We submit that there ought to be an explanation."
Sangwa also said the pronouncement clearly indicated that Nkole had no respect for the court and that the court had inherent jurisdiction and authority to protect the integrity of its office.
"Your Honour, where does Mr Nkole get the courage and boldness to make such pronouncements? Are we to take it that Mr Nkole knows the outcome of these proceedings? Your Honour, you are in charge of these proceedings and you alone has the power to determine the guilty or innocence of the accused. It is your responsibility to ensure the proceedings before you are free and fair and you have got powers to ensure that that is achieved.
We beg you to do something and this is not the first time, previous pronouncements have been made. We want assurances from you that these proceedings are not only a sham whose outcome is already predetermined for Mr Nkole to feel so confident to talk about them," Sangwa said.
In response, state prosecutions lawyer Mutembo Nchito said he needed to consult Nkole before responding to the application.
Meanwhile, Kabwe yesterday opened his defence in which he detailed his education and professional background including his involvement in Meridian International Bank.
Hearing continues today.
Labels: ACCESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHILUBA, MAX NKOLE, ROBERT SIMEZA, TASK FORCE
Read more...
