AN ATTEMPT to investigate the $1.3million plunder of Tedworth properties may have led to the untimely and unconstitutional removal of former Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission Captain Godfrey Kayukwa.
And ACC sources have revealed that in spite of a court order by former Supreme Court Judge Philip Musonda for an investigation into the plunder, no such investigation will take place because “powerful” people are still in control of the ACC.
Pressure was apparently brought to bear on late President Michael Sata to remove Captain Kayukwa because of the danger that he would expose and thereafter bring to book culprits that have stolen more than $1.3 million from the sequestrated properties.
Following the removal of Captain Kayukwa no effort has been made to investigate the theft of billions of kwacha through various guises and that no effort will be made because those behind the thefts are controlling the Anti Corruption Commission.
The Daily Nation can reveal that the ACC has refused to serve Simeza, Sangwa & Associates, the lawyers retained by Tedworth Properties, records of appeal and heads of arguments when the matter is expected to come up in the Supreme Court on 16th July 2015.
Simeza, Sangwa & Associates have since complained to the Supreme Court over the refusal by the ACC to serve them with the records of appeal and heads of arguments as was legally and procedurally required by the parties.
The lawyers have complained to the Master of the Supreme Court that the ACC had refused to serve them with the records of appeal and heads of arguments despite numerous requests.
In a letter dated 22nd June 2015 to the Master of the Supreme Court captioned Anti-Corruption Vs Tedworth Properties Inc: Appeal No 209 of 2012, Simeza, Sangwa & Associates said the ACC had ignored their numerous requests to serve them with the records of appeal and the heads of arguments.
THE case of the looting of the Tedworth Properties proceeds by known people is being frustrated by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) which has refused to serve the record of appeal and heads of arguments to the lawyers representing the now liquidated Tedworth Properties.
The Anti-Corruption Commission was ordered by the Lusaka High Court to take possession of the Tedworth Properties after more than US$1.3 million vanished without trace but the commission appealed against the judgment that was in its favour.
The ACC under the defunct Task Force on Corruption was among other cases investigating the directors of Access Financial Services Limited who at the time were Fautin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu who were managing several properties under Tedworth Properties.
The lawyers said they were seeking the indulgence of the Supreme Court so that they could be availed with the record of appeal so that they could adequately prepare themselves for the hearing of the matter next month.
“We act for Tedworth Properties Inc (“our client”) kindly note our interest: This appeal is scheduled to come up for hearing on 16th July 2015, but the appellant has refused to serve us with the records of appeal and heads of arguments despite our numerous requests. We in the premises would humbly seek your indulgence to avail us the record of appeal so that we may make a copy to prepare for hearing,” the lawyers said.
Then High Court Judge Philip Musonda ordered that the Bank of Zambia should have surrendered the illegally seized Tedworth Properties to the ACC because they were the legal custodians of the properties but the commission appealed against the ruling that was in its favour. In its appeal, the ACC has claimed that Justice Musonda erred both in fact and law to proceed with the matter when the properties in issue had already been fortified to the State.
The ACC claimed that Justice Musonda in his judgment ignored the provisions of the Corrupt Practices (disposal of recovered properties) regulations of 1986.
“The learned Judge in the Court below erred in law and fact when he delivered declaratory judgment based on affidavit evidence ignoring the earlier ruling that the matter be dealt with as if commenced by writ and parties be at liberty to call viva voce evidence, the ACC claimed in their heads of arguments for their appeal.