The Kawambwa Magistrate Court has sentenced Kawambwa Member of Parliament Nickson Chilangwa to five years imprisonment with hard labour after finding him guilty of malicious damage to property.
Additionally, the court has convicted Pambashe Member of Parliament Ronald Chitotela of arson and committed him to the High Court for sentencing. Kawambwa Resident Magistrate Martin Namushi delivered the ruling today. Magistrate Namushi stated that he could not sentence Mr. Chitotela, as the offence of arson carries a minimum sentence of 10 years, which exceeds the jurisdiction of a magistrate.
Others found guilty in the case include Kalumba Chifumbe and Davy Kaniki, who have both been sentenced to five years for malicious damage to property.
The charges against Mr. Chitotela, Mr. Chilangwa, and their co-accused stem from an incident during the 2021 General Election, where they were accused of burning a Mahindra vehicle belonging to the UPND Luapula Youth Committee.
Meanwhile, the ruling on the bail application for Mr. Chilangwa and his co-convicts is still awaited.
Like the way you enjoyed the wealth you accumulated on your own, you’re on your own.
Kansune should lobby pardon for Chilangwa.
He has bad temper because he is handicapped, we need to accept and exempt some behavior in society.
Do they have evidence of the same arson
Is it possible to convict them without evidence?
What is arson? Burning a house or anything?
Every dog has its day. And then suddenly, it’s a small world after all. This cycle will continue for as long as our so-called leaders think they are small gods while holding office or perceived power.
Wooow…..whoever thought RC ?? One of the most once upon at time powerful men in Society
This is the problem with politicians. When they are in power they become untouchables and think they can do anything but they forget that they won’t be in power forever. Let this also be a lesson to the current government.
The arms of law has caught on them
Just wondering, both Chilangwa’s election and that of Chitotela were petitioned and the court dismissed the petitions and declared the duo as duly elected. How was that if this is how they conducted themselves during those same elections? The two judgements seem to contradict