Malanji, Yamba sentence too soft – DPP

GRACE CHAILE

Lusaka

THE State has asked the High Court to increase the prison sentences imposed on former Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Malanji and former Secretary to the Treasury Fredson Yamba, arguing that the punishments are too lenient given the seriousness of their offences and amounts of public funds involved.

The State is also seeking to overturn Malanji’s acquittal on a charge of possessing property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime involving Royal Gibson Hotel in Kitwe.

In heads of argument supporting its cross-appeal before the Lusaka High Court, Director of Public Prosecutions Gilbert Phiri argues that the sentences are manifestly inadequate and fail to reflect the gravity of the offences.

“The respondent (DPP) respectfully prays that this honourable court finds merit in both grounds of the cross appeal and enhances the sentences imposed on the first and second appellants, and sets aside the acquittal in count five and enters a conviction against Malanji,” the State submits.

Mr Phiri said Yamba, convicted on two counts of wilful failure to comply with the law relating to the management of public property, received three years’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count, to run concurrently.

He said Yamba authorised transfers of K108.4 million and K45.8 million into the Zambian mission account for real estate procurement without following prescribed legal procedures.

Malanji, who was convicted on six counts of possessing property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, received four years’ imprisonment with hard labour on each count, also to run concurrently.

The properties included two helicopters, US$110,000 and US$105,000 in cash, and three houses in Silverest Gardens.

Mr Phiri argued that the sentences imposed by the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court, sitting as the Economic and Financial Crimes Court, failed to adequately serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

Citing Supreme Court decisions, including Alubisho v The People, he said an appellate court can interfere with sentences that are manifestly excessive or so inadequate that they induce a sense of shock.

On Malanji’s acquittal in count five involving Royal Gibson Hotel, the DPP argued that the trial court overlooked banking evidence allegedly linking funds deposited into Gibson Power Systems’ account to the liquidation of the hotel’s mortgage facilities. https://enews.daily-mail.co.zm/welcome/home