A state witness on tuesday exonerated former president Rupiah Banda when he testified that Zambia did not lose a single cent in the Nigerian oil purported deal because government did not procure nor was any money paid to the Nigerian government for the deal.
Charles Mulenga, acting director at the Ministry of Energy and Water Development shocked the Lusaka Magistrate Court when he testified that he did not know of any deal between the Zambian government and the Republic of Nigeria involving the importation of crude oil.
Mulenga also shocked the Magistrate court when he testified that he was summoned by the Government Joint Investigative Team (GJIT) for questioning over the oil deal more than two years after the case against president Banda had been on the stand in the same case.
Mulenga said he was not aware that the Zambian government had purchased and paid for the said oil from the Nigerian government adding he was not even aware that the Zambian government had lost money in the said deal.
Mulenga was testifying in a matter in which former President Rupiah Banda, 75, of 3 Plot 2759 off Leopards Hill Road in Lusaka is charged with one count of abuse of authority of office.President Banda is alleged to have procured a US$2.5 million Nigerian government-to-government oil contract in the name of the Republic of Zambia which former president is alleging was meant to benefit himself and his family.Mulenga testified that he was not aware of any contract between the Zambian government and SARB, a Nigerian oil company and that he was not aware whether there was any transaction took place between president Banda and the Nigerian oil company.
In cross examination, Mulenga testified: “I am not aware that Zambia purchased crude oil from Nigeria. I am not aware that any money was budgeted for by the government to procure crude oil from the Nigerian government. My Lord, I do not know of any deal of oil involving president Banda or the Zambian government with the republic of Nigeria. In fact I am not aware that there is a committee at the Ministry of Energy specifically dealing with issues of oil,” Mulenga who is acting director at the Ministry of Energy testified much to the shock of the prosecution team.
Mulenga becomes one of a number of witnesses to have testified against the State with the first having been a Nigerian tycoon Akpan Ekpene who had admitted that former president Banda had no hand whatsoever in the oil deal and did not solicit for any money from the Nigerian government.
Ekpene testified that his company had since entered into negotiations with the Patriotic Front (PF) government which in his last testimony said the oil deal had been taken over by the current government.
And another state witness, Friday Tembo who is the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Senior investigations officer said there was no deal signed between the Zambian government and the republic of Nigeria.
Tembo said the said oil purported to have been purchased from Nigeria never arrived in Zambia and that there were no proceeds received by government if the said oil was ever sold.
But Tembo testified that although he was aware that there was no oil that came into Zambia, he was of the belief that president Banda had committed an offence of abuse of office when he allegedly involved his son Henry in the deal. The matter has been adjourned to Tuesday next week.
[Daily Nation]
LT most people here do not know the word exonerating you should have used a simple word for them to understand, as that is what happens from the comments at time
People it means exculpate, or acquits.
Thanks
I really to not understand the desperation of M’membe, nchito and Sata over RB and the MMD. The truth is unfolding that these people lied to the nation and are determined to prove their lies as true. Tembo seems to be shamelessly in on it..How can it be “illegal” for RB to involve his Son Henry in a deal “that never was”. If there was no deal between Zambia and Nigeria then what abuse of Office took place? Even if there was a deal between RB and the Nigerian Govt and RB involves his Son, it does not amount to “abuse of office”. If Sata was, in the slightest, serious about corruption, he would have pursued Kachingwe in this non-existent deal. Kabimba should be put on his defence for the lies he shamelessly put before Parliament to revoke RB’s immunity.
I wonder if the Past Newspaper managed to splash a similar headline with equal prominence as those we witnessed when they were busy pulling wool over our eyes and “stealing” our path to economic emancipation? It really pierces my heart when I think about the evil nature of M’membe, Sata, Nchito and Kabimba. You cant do such evil to a harmless and innocent people for selfish gain. These people must be answerable even in their coffins.
why would the witness shock the magistrate? the magistrate is there to hear the testimony of witnesses and then decide.
it would have made sense if the report said the witness “shocked” the prosecution.
To me this sounds like a desperate attempt by those that benefited from the corrupt regime of RB to exaggerate a simple story. Remember it not unusual for witnesses can turn hostile
This case is a waste of tax payers money, the cost of this case supersedes even the ghost money PF is trying to retrieve. Infact It appears to me as a money making venture, the rightful Zambians are the ones loosing in the end.
exonerate means- to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime or responsible for a problem or any bad situation is being accused of. SO WHAT IS DIFFICULTY ABOUT THIS WORD IWE CHI @ MUSHOTA.
Manje Banda bamuvutila chani kansi? Bamuciye chabe
So it was yet again waste of resources, time and energy! When will this bulling of one another come to an end? Am starting to think there are could be traces of mental disorders within the sphere of politics!
Goerge Mtonga……. can you send an article, follow it up with a documentary over such happenings? Tittle it…… Life of a Zambian politician (Joys and Turmoils).
The problem with UPND cadres is that anything that appears to be against PF is a hot potato! Infact what this testimony says is that RB did not engage the right people in the procurement of the said oil, thus making the deal dubious.In short the witness is saying that though government headed papers were used to solicit for oil,RB did not engage them but used his son. Infact, Richard Sakala of the Daily Nation has engaged himself in contempt of court by trying tgo subjudice the court process by saying that RB has been exoneratd because the case is still on and the person to say that at the end of it all is the magistrate hearing the case.
Why was the magistrate shocked by the state witness? Thought he should not show partiality??
@Grant
I’m sure if you re-read the article, it says the ‘magistrate court’. This does not refer to the Judicial Officer per se but to everyone in the courtroom i.e. members of the gallery, prosecutors, detainees in court etc. Agree?
Ama lawyers, inform us. How would a magistrate ever be shocked by listening to evidence? We ask because we understand why the magistrate was supposed to listen to the evidence. Ciza uli?
How would he know when he hangs his Jacket on his chair and goes to his plot everyday?
@Tunkkubyu
Who?
Tekanyeni … This is one side of the story. There where documents and money transferred so noti uku conluda let the courts do the work.
My only concern cases Pa Zed take for ever in this day and age… embarrassing to say the least….
But ba St. Jude, natotela naumfwa mwalondolola bwino. Asante sana.
The article is from the former convict newspaper . Mulenga did not know what was happening as the former president appointed his son her Henery to be incharge of the oil deal. All the other papers wrote as exact as Mulenga told the court . The English is always misused even by the learnt. There is nothing to say Mulenga supported mr Banda as insinuated by mr sakala’ s news paper. This is what being behind the key board means. Mulenga did not know anything despite his position period . Mulenga is a state witness and not otherwise
The article is from the former corruption convict newspaper- sakala former press secretary to late Chiluba. Mulenga did not know what was happening as the former president appointed his son Henery to be incharge of the oil deal. All the news papers wrote as exact as Mulenga told the court . The English is always misused even by the learnt. There is nothing to say Mulenga supported mr Banda as insinuated by mr sakala’ s news paper. This is what being behind the key board means. Mulenga did not know anything despite his position period . Mulenga is a state witness and not otherwise
I have read several excellent stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much attempt you place to make any such wonderful informative website.